Talk:Signals (Rush album)

Untitled
This is what you said about the drumming in the song, "Subdivisions":

One of the band's staple tunes, "Subdivisions" is also a classic and challenging play-along for first-year drummers.

O.K. Does this mean it's a "beginning drummer's" little trainer. Have you even listened to the drumming in this song? Do you know anyone that can even come close. Maybe a second year student. A third year student?

Can anyone in music even come close to the drumming in this song? What a unbelievably stupid remark! Neil Peart (pronounced "peert") is the greatest drummer that ever lived, and this song is a display of his incredible talent. To think that there are drummers out there that after a lifetime of practice can even come close to the excellence in Peart's accomplishment in this song, is a joke.

Do another group. You don't know enough to talk about Rush.

Reply to 24.2.9.10
''O.K. Does this mean it's a "beginning drummer's" little trainer. Have you even listened to the drumming in this song? Do you know anyone that can even come close. Maybe a second year student. A third year student?''

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have listened to "Subdivisions". Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple hundred times. And yes, I do happen to know someone who did come close. Me. I learned to play the vast majority of the song in my first year of drumming, when I was 12 years old, with a teacher's help. Aside from a few fills (the "challenging" parts), the song is really not all that difficult to play (7/4, 4/4 (most of it) and 6/4. woo). No, I did not nail it completely in that first year (again, that's what the word "challenging" is there for), but I did learn quite a bit from trying. 16 years later, I still play along with the song occasionally (note-for-note now) because it's still fun to play.

''Can anyone in music even come close to the drumming in this song? What a unbelievably stupid remark!''

Uh huh. There quite a number of drummers that go far beyond the complexity and finesse evident in drum playing in this song. Not to take anything away from Peart; he's an excellent drummer and this song in particular is one of my favorites. But the playing he does with Rush definitely does not represent the zenith of what is possible in the art of kit drumming. Try checking out Terry Bozzio or Akira Jimbo sometime.

http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Terry_Bozzio.html http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Akira_Jimbo.html

''Neil Peart (pronounced "peert") is the greatest drummer that ever lived, and this song is a display of his incredible talent. To think that there are drummers out there that after a lifetime of practice can even come close to the excellence in Peart's accomplishment in this song, is a joke.''

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. My own opinion on the matter is that anyone who cannot fathom themselves playing drums at the same level evident in a Rush song is someone who should probably either try harder to stop sabotaging themselves or just set down the sticks. Some of it is challenging stuff. But none of it is by any means impossible to play, even for beginners.

''Do another group. You don't know enough to talk about Rush.''

Uh huh. Grow up.

I'm not a drummer, but I clicked to check the talk page especially to check if there was any controversy on the "first-year" comment, and indeed there was. Different musicians have different learning curves. I think it's consensual that the drumming in Subdivisions is worth of notice, but the "first-year" remark is too subjective. I disagree with the previous poster that Neil Peart is the "greatest that ever lived" and I agree with your remark about taking on challenging songs (both comments off-topic, by the way), but I'll agree with the original poster in that we shouldn't grade the difficulty of songs here -- that is critiqueing, not an objective fact (which is what we strive for in Wikipedia). -- LodeRunner 23:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Countdown
""Countdown" is example of lyricist Neil Peart's descriptions, derived from literary influences: "venting vapours like the breath of a sleeping white dragon...", as he recounts the launch of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 1981."

Not to mention "Excitement so thick you could cut it with a knife". Truly the zenith of Peart's lyrical ability.

(I love Signals, but it's hard to avoid ragging on Countdown...)

Instrumentals
"Signals was the end of Rush's extended instrumentals (until 2007's Snakes And Arrows, which had "The Main Monkey Business", a 6-minute long instrumental)."

I'm going to go ahead and remove this entirely, as it is not true. Their next extended instrumental piece was "Where's My Thing?" from Roll the Bones in 1991, which is far less significant than the 26 year gap the article suggests. 74.120.192.135 03:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hidden tracks
Uhhhh... can anybody tell me why they said there were hidden tracks in "The Analog Kid" and "Countdown"? I have the original CD pressing and it does not have the hidden tracks, it just has the regular endings. Can anybody tell me if there are pressings of the albums with these hidden tracks? If so, I want them :)! Meanwhile, I'm going to take the hidden tracks off the article.

There are also no "original lyrics" at the ending of "Digital Man" nor is it "significantly longer" than the album version on the Ultradisc version. Whoever heard that must have taken a literal "passage to Bangkok". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.220.250 (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits
I would like to add that Trent Reznor cited this album as a major influence and that music journalist Martin Popoff considers it his favorite Rush album.

I would like to add that Stereogum placed this album third in their list of best to worst Rush albums as well as quote their opinion from that article (the Open Your Eyes article includes Stereogum's listing of Open Your Eyes on best to worst Yes albums as well as their opinion). I would also like to do the same for Ultimate Classic Rock.

Also, I would like to change the genre listings of this album to progressive rock, new wave, and synthrock (I would hardly consider this album to be pop rock).

I have sources for all of these, and in my opinion, these should be included in the article.

I will leave the article alone for two days to allow discussion; if no one expresses disagreement with these decisions, I will make the edits. SomePersona (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No brainer. Go ahead and make your well-sourced edits. Not sure why we're having this discussion at all. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

All of the edits mentioned except genre listings have been made. SomePersona (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Genre listings
I want to change the genre listings of this album to progressive rock (second source refers to Subdivisions as a "synth-heavy prog epic"), synth rock, new wave , and pop rock. I feel this would help properly reflect the variations of genre throughout this album. I would also like to place pop rock last since this album combines genres (e.g. Digital Man and Chemistry have reggae influences) and has songs with irregular time signatures (e.g. Losing It combines 5/8 and 11/8), standards that break from the norms of pop rock and match more closely with aspects of progressive rock.
 * 2112.net appears to be a fan site and the transcript a copyright violation. Fan sites are generally not reliable, see WP:SPS. We cannot link to apparent copyright violations. If you can find a legitimate source for the article, the question would be whether or not "PROG" magazine is a reliable source.
 * I can't find anything on ultimateclassicrock.com to indicate its reliability. There doesn't seem to be an "about" page and the privacy policy seems to be that of the hosting service. It might essentially be a blog.
 * www.rushisaband.com calls itself a blog and I have no reason to doubt that. Not a reliable source, please see WP:SPS.
 * Stereogum is part of Billboard/Hollywood Reporter. Assuming the site has editorial oversight (I didn't look too closely), it should be reliable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The Stereogum article also essentially links the album to synth rock.

"Rush: The Illustrated History" by Martin Popoff (as well as the review inside the biography by Daniel Bukszpan) describes Signals as having "Rush trademark[s]" with odd-metered songs like Losing It and Subdivisions and making the music more complex with genres like reggae in Digital Man and New World Man. It also links the album to synth rock and new wave.

Both Stereogum and the biography note the unconventional production of this album that made it less mainstream and therefore with less elements of pop rock. SomePersona (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not see anything in the Stereogum article calling Signals a "synth-rock" album. Rather than descriptions that you feel "link" the album to synth rock and new wave, do the sources actually directly state that the album is synth rock and/or new wave? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Experiencing Rush: A Listener's Companion" by Durrell Bowman, a public music historian and musicologist, specifically states that Signals is synth-rock and new wave fused with progressive rock (Chapter 5: Fusions with Synth-Rock and New Wave, 1982-1984).

"Rush: An Illustrated History" specifically states that Signals is progressive rock, noting the songs "Losing It" and "Subdivisions." SomePersona (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

An article from Prog Sphere ranking Rush albums says that Signals is a mix of synth-rock, progressive rock, new wave, and reggae-rock (The Popoff biography previously cited also says Signals has reggae elements; it just says reggae, not reggae rock). SomePersona (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Prog Sphere seems to be a blog. Their website says that they are "...a website devoted to..." with nothing to indicate editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc. Additionally, their "about" page needs several grammatical corrections. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

"The 100 Greatest Bands of All Time" by David Moskowitz says that "there was a strong influence of reggae" on Signals (page 576). I think this would also institute classifying Signals as reggae or reggae-rock as well. SomePersona (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing how "a strong influence of reggae" translates to "reggae" or "reggae-rock". No one would say Bob Marley is "influenced" by reggae. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

How about the Bowman biography? Does that justify adding new wave and synth-rock as genres? SomePersona (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of these genres are directly stated in the biography; also, new wave is directly stated in the Stereogum article. SomePersona (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I will list the genres as synth rock, progressive rock, and new wave tomorrow with cited sources. SomePersona (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

New possible genre addition
Hey everyone, I noticed on the Neo-progressive Rock page that the Rush albums Signals through Hold Your Fire were mentioned as influencing neo-prog and I really agree. Is it possible I could put "neo-progressive rock" as another genre for Signals, GUP, PWs and HYF? Progsphere0506 (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)