Talk:Rush (band)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rush is or was a band ?

Rush is a band. I think the fact that the members may not tour again doesn't mean the band is over or not. They said they can make records again and even small concerts. Even a major tour is possible, nobody knows that. Maybe they will not tour again, but this don't define if the band is over or not. They are regularly releasing videos on their youtube channel. They are regularly posting on their facebook and instagram pages. They are regularly updating their website. There is NO OFFICIAL SOURCE that the band is done. This is enough to conclude that the band is not over. For these reasons I believe that the article must start saying that Rush is a band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.216.180.116 (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I found this, It's been a little over two years since Rush last toured. We have no plans to tour or record any more. Plus the two in this section 2009–2018: Time Machine Tour, Clockwork Angels, R40–final tour and disbandment - FlightTime (open channel) 22:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is not an official statement saying the band is done. Alex said in a casual interview once and it's not confirmed. You can check their website https://www.rush.com/ to see that the band is still active, as well as https://www.facebook.com/rushtheband/ and https://www.instagram.com/rush. They even released this recently https://www.instagram.com/p/BhsXwc7HTxQ/?taken-by=rush

Well, good luck with your consensus campaign, I for one am satisfied with the current status of the article and the references posted. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the IP user that there doesn’t appear to be a citation for the band being done. Has there been any new developments? If not, I’d argue that listing years active to 2018 is WP:SYNTH. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the statements from band members saying they are done is not sufficient. They seem to have said enough already; a release from the band probably seems redundant at this point. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

because as far as I can tell those statements have been mentioned but not cited. If I missed it please correct me. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• See the bottom of the 2009–2018 section (under History) as mentioned by User:FlightTime above. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Tricky situation, but I lean towards agreeing that 2018 is appropriate to list as the end of years active. Can obviously be changed in the future if something changes. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 definitely seems like the proper year. It feels like the band was still hinting at possible future activity prior to that, and we don't have any comments from them about the band ending prior to 2018. 47.54.63.42 (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

2015 or 2018?

The members section says that the trio were members until 2015, which is true, but the infobox shows that the band ended in 2018. Officially that's true also, but looks a bit confusing. Coming from a fan I can say that to me Rush doesn't exist since 2015. Is there a discrepancy? (Sinclair 98 luis (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

Read the discussion in the section named "Rush is or was a band ?" above about where 2015 comes from. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Aliases

Fishhead2100 has introduced two "aliases" into the infobox (The Projection and Hadrian). I removed them as non-notable, since they are not even written about in the article. This is a clear MoS violation (there's not supposed to be anything in infoboxes that's not written in the article prose), and I maintain these early names are not notable enough for mention in the infobox anyway. Since this editor has chosen to edit war instead of following WP:BRD, I'm opening a discussion here. --Laser brain (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• These were early names for the band. They were covered in the History of Rush article before it was converted to a redirect. But nobody bothered to move details to the main Rush article afterward. These early names and other details should be briefly mentioned in the article, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I understand what they are. My issue is that they're being edit warred into the infobox without even being written about in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK, but a few back and forth edits on this don't make a real edit war imo. Better to just move forward. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, let's not split hairs on the definition of edit warring. We have a standing MoS violation, and I also believe only key facts should be in the infobox. This is little more than trivia. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Fnlayson and Laser_brain, we resolved the issue. The person who asked for the source didn't see it which is why he reverted the last time. He restored it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm. --Laser brain (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

My initial concern was a supporting reference, but now Laser brain is correct, this should be brought up in the article body and not the Infobox. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Right, I was aware of the edits. A sentence saying "The band was named The Projection during 1968 and Hadrian in 1969." (or similar) would be a good add and support infobox imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is an exemplar for why infoboxes can be bad. They are magnets for trivia and drive-by factoids. The infobox appears prominently on mobile devices and now we have to read through that even though it has nothing to do with the band's notability or legacy. What's next? Can we put their blood types in there if we have a source? --Laser brain (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Kimonos

Shouldn't their kimonos be mentioned? They were very memorable and distinctive. 2607:FEA8:10E0:1C00:94D:E193:373C:3937 (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The band's attire for a short time seems rather minor overall, but a brief mention might be OK. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

funk influence

If your going to say the band merged their sound with the reggae, new wave etc, then surely it only makes sense to mention how Rush also have many funk infuenced songs. Lee's bass guitar was funky on "Signals", and Lee's bass and Lifeson's guitar gave the entire albums of "presto" and "roll the bones" a distinct funky sound, including actual funk rock songs. All these songs are funk influenced: - "YYZ" - "Digital Man" - "The Weapon" - "The Enemy Within" - "Red Lenses" - "The Body Electric" - "Open Secrets" - Presto (the entire album except "presto", "the pass" and "available light") - "Roll the Bones" - "Where's my thing" - "Neurotica" - "Leave that thing alone" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.30.134 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not hyphenating "Line up"

"Line-up" with the hyphen is not necessary and not preferred.

• [June Casagrande], former editor at the LA Times and author of multiple grammar books, says "never hyphenate it".
• [Kris Spisak], college writing professor and author of multiple books on grammar, "The recommended version, even when acting as an adjective, is the one word form."
• [Webster's Dictionary] doesn't even list the hyphenated form. MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OK but this article uses Canadian spellings, not US spellings. The British Cambridge Dictionary uses "Line-up" here. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that this is Canadian English. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What British English doesn't is not relevant to Canadian English thus it's still "lineup." Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The Holy Triumvirate

"The Holy Triumvirate" seems to be a popular nickname for the band. That should be included somewhere in the article. Just typing in "holy triumvirate" on Google, many of the results are about Rush. 2601:2C0:8500:3EF0:80A3:22B1:B5DF:6E62 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, like super popular. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing reliable sources using the name or saying the name is used. That's what we would need to include something. Bondegezou (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ditto - you'd need a RS. Personally I've never heard it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

This is likely an obscure reference to the film "I love you Man" with Paul Rudd and Jason Segel. The characters (and actors) have used the nickname, but that's really the extent of it and does not warrant a mention.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 18:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wisdom89: This might be just fluff, but Rush mentions "Holy Triumvirate" in their Twitter bio. Ckruschke, fans use it. They have put Rush at a "godlike" status. Outside of that, it might be hard to source. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Mr. C.C. - I've been a Rush fan since 1985, own every album, been to multiple concerts, and I've never heard the use. This is why I made the comment - which implies (to me) that its fancruft and not a RS. But I'm not 25 years old living on Twitter so maybe that's the reason I'm ignorant of the term. Ckruschke (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

@Ckruschke: "Not a 25-year-old living on Twitter." It has nothing to do with being on Twitter (best way to put it civilly). It's merely a statement of Rush acknowledging it. Just because you never heard it doesn't mean it's not used. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It might well be used, but the epistemological standard used on Wikipedia is WP:V: do we have reliable sources talking about its use, or using it? Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Toronto Sound Studios

Shouldn't Terry Brown's Toronto Sound Studios in Toronto be mentioned? Many of their early albums were recorded there 67.68.34.38 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have cited text, please feel free to be bold and make the insertion. Make sure its reference though or it will be deleted as Original Research. Ckruschke (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Potential references: https://www.rush.com/albums/ Liner Notes & https://www.discogs.com/label/274293-Toronto-Sound-Studios BigJoeRockHead (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Current state of the lead

The lead section seems to be severely bloated with unnecessary details about singles, chart positions and song reception in various countries. It's excessive and difficult to read. The lead should concisely summarize the entirety of the subject as outlined in the body of the article, but without this level of enumeration/listing (even if it's in paragraph form). I would excise most of it, but perhaps leave in some of the band's more noteworthy milestones ("Working Man", "2112", "Tom Sawyer" etc..). Just my thoughts.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 18:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it has been a recurring problem with a particular editor who likes a lot more detail in the lead section than most of the rest of us. Here is what the lead section looked liked back in mid-November, before it came under the attention of Toronto IPs Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 and the associated user account Informed analysis. The "before" version is 336 words whereas the current version is 616 words. You could start by rolling back to the mid-November lead section and then maybe build it up a bit to find some middle ground. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I was lurking and noted some of these changes occurring, but didn't intervene much. The diff from November is far superior to what we have now. I will wait for additional opinions before making any gross changes.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 19:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, please feel free to make "gross changes". The article needs your help. If someone doesn't like it, they can revert and join this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, give it a go, User:Wisdom89. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well, too much information. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Do it! Instant Comma (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I just did some trimming. I also moved two sentences that were next to "The band was inducted into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame in 1994 and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2013" up to the section focusing on the band's recording and performing career. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I like your trimming job, MetalDiablo666. Informed analysis added some more detail, to bring your 386 words up to 452, but I think it was a bit too much detail for smooth reading, so I pared it back down to 416 words, removing all of the number this and number that chart success of the songs. I kept three songs. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you guys actually Rush fans or knowledegeable on them at all? Spirit of Radio is on the Rock Hall of Fame 500 songs that changed the shape of rock and roll. Some people consider Closer to the Heart to be their signature song. Tom Sawyer did not sell 4 times platinum - the album did. Binksternet has a high propensity to put incorrect information in. Please stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs)

So help me get it right, but without adding hard-to-read detail. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Song details

I decided to be bold and expunged what I consider to be an unnecessary amount of "by-the-way" tidbits about songs and albums, mostly involving future/eventual chart positions. Cited or not, it's too much clutter and detracts from the focus of the section, that being Rush's history and evolution. That kind of information belongs in a separate dedicated article either about the song itself, or the album it appeared on. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me, but drop a comment here.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 02:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wisdom89: You consider information "unnecessary," but did you move the information to the appropriate articles? If not, than wouldn't that could be considered lip service. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It could be considered that way, sure, but frankly, I don't have the time or inclination to do extra legwork as a result of a poorly edited article.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 11:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

One other comment. I invite anyone more diligent than I to help spin that info off into additional articles (provided they were sourced to begin with, as some of the content was not). If anyone disagrees strongly with my actions, they are welcome to wholly or partially revert me. My skin is thick.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 16:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I had some downtime at work. I transferred most of the removed/altered information into their respective articles. Everything else was either already mentioned in the target article (and thus would have been completely redundant), or it was unsourced.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 21:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

World Radio History Reference

I looked at the archived reference for World Radio History and it doesn't point to a specific edition of RPM. All it does it point to a list of years and editions of RPM. Unless it points to a specific edition, it's not a good source for sourcing chat positions in that regard. You can search the RPM archives at Library and Archives Canada for such things. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Ckruschke (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

"R40" video single

I have a bit of a mystery. The latest (and probably last) Gold video single awarded by RIAA is for "R40", released November 11, 2014 and awarded December 14, 2017.. Does anyone know what this is about? --Muhandes (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Isn't it for the R40 Live Album? Ckruschke (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ckruschke: You can see in the source I used that R40 Live, released November 20, 2015, was certified separately as video longform. There seems to be a separate "R40", released November 11, 2014, which was certified a video single. I thought maybe someone familiar with Rush could shed some light on that.--Muhandes (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the video - I'm talking about the R40 live album (see https://www.amazon.com/R40-Live-CD-DVD-Combo/dp/B0164CMT9M/). The DVD is available either with the album or the two can be purchased separately. Ckruschke (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

First, according to the R40 Live article, the album is a recording of a November 20, 2015 performance. The certification is for something released November 11, 2014. Second, why would the album be certified as "Video Single", a format which is for media which includes 15 minutes or less of video. and at most two tracks? --Muhandes (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

This is a confusing addition. The band membership was entirely stable for over 40 years. The only unique markers are the black lines denoting album releases, which is completely redundant with the simple-to-follow chronological listing of their discography. I don't really feel strongly about it, but what actual purpose does it serve?  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 15:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Not much. But it is inaccurate now. Since the timeline starts in 1968, it should list both Rutsey and Peart in the years they were in the band. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Commercial success

"Rush achieved commercial success in the 1970s with several albums, including Fly by Night, (1975)...". None of their first three albums, including Fly By Night, were commercially successful. In fact the band's career was likely to end if their fourth album, 2112, was not a hit. Ron2112 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair points but the last part involves enough success to make the record company happy, which can be a higher bar. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback?

Is there a reason there's no mention of Feedback_(EP) anywhere in the text or discography or this talk page? There may well be; I was just surprised not to find discussion here of the omission. It may be called an "EP", but I'm not sure why, as it's got 8 songs on it, as many as their first album. In fact until looking it up to make this comment I didn't even realize it wasn't just considered an "album". SteubenGlass (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback is an EP of cover songs and is mentioned in the 2001–2009 section. Since it cover songs and not a full length album, it gets less coverage (see also WP:UNDUE). -Fnlayson (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

As it stands now, the lead section is a little confusing. It seems to say the band was formed by Lee, Lifeson and Peart in 1968, then later says that Peart replaced the original drummer in 1974. Am going to try to make it clearer, but may need someone with a better wiki writing style to look it over.146.112.56.105 (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"Soon after replaced" doesn't properly communicate that Jones played one gig. I'll tweak it a little and fix up some of your copy mistakes. Ckruschke (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Timeline (2)

It’s better if we get rid of that timeline. There was barely any changes to the band’s history. We don’t need it. A.R.M. 02:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, Rush does not need a timeline. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the timeline is useful for the ealier years. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The real question should be whether the timeline actually adds any more clarity to what is already stated in the text. I submit that the current explanation is more than satisfactory and unambiguous. The timeline provides no additional insight into the band's history.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: Even if they were briefly members, it's still something to have. There are bands that have had less members over their history and have a timeline. There is nothing wrong with that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Where is the original discussion to get it in there in the first place? If there isn't one then it's not there by consensus that makes it just an edit, remove it. Then whoever wants it back, they can do the legwork. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

End year

There was discussion in 2018 about which year the article should state the band ended. At the time the decision was made to use 2018. However, in the wake of Neil Peart's death, we now have information that indicates that 2015 or 2016 should be used. The Rolling Stone article linked at the top of this discussion page shows that in August 2016 Peart was diagnosed with a form of brain cancer that has an average survival time of 12-18 months. 2015 would make sense as the year of the final concert (after which Peart openly considered himself retired), though a case could be made for 2016 as the year when everyone in the band knew there was no chance of further activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.5.13.167 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In 2015 and 2016 Lee and Lifeson said that Peart and the band retired from touring, it wasn't a full-fledged retirement. The proper disbandment was announced by Lifeson only in 2018. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this. They simply chose to stop touring - they could have pulled a Beatles and continued to record. Ckruschke (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

At the same time, it's wrong to say Neal Peart's career ended in 2015. He decided to stop touring that year, but he never announced his official retirement from music. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Just because Neil retired from touring a while ago doesn't mean Rush immediately disbanded. Some musicians (even those who are trying to cope with the death, the retirement or the departure or whatever of a band member) take a considerable amount of time to decide whether or not their band should continue with a new member or just disband. That could exactly be the reason why it took a few years after Neil's retirement to announce an official disbandment. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Jones

Jeffrey Jones is a fine musician, but he played one gig, years before any recording, and Alex and Geddy had played previously. There's no reference to any kind of contract, or him doing any kind of songwriting (They were doing covers at the time). There was an entire shakeup at the time that lasted about a month, with players coming and going. The official bio mentions his name once, in passing, without even identifying him as THAT Jeff Jones, performing one gig. Given that, is it really accurate to say he was a member of the band? That's an audition or a fill-in, not membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.170.9 (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. The addition of some of these names as "members" is really a stretch. Is the standard of being in any band playing one gig with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.50.181 (talk • contribs)

Technically, Jeff Jones was a founding member of the band, even though he left after the first gig. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/transcripts/20110900vintageguitar.htm this puts Jeff Jones in "The Projection" for one gig, replaced by Geddy Lee, and then the band "evolved into Rush."

https://web.archive.org/web/20180829205848/https://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&bpctr=9999999999&gl=US&has_verified=1&v=t5JTBmx3xpc&disable_polymer=true is cited on Jones' WP page, but makes no mention of him.

B-man's article makes it clear no one exactly remembers the dates or names, and there's a video of Lee and Lifeson touring churches to remember "Where we played our first gig." So apparently they consider Rush to post-date their linkup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.177.13 (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TwUp-TP350 says Geddy and Alex "two of the three founding members" and they discuss their "first paid gig" in 1968, earning $10.

I cannot see the video. Anyway, even though Geddy Lee has been in the band since September 1968, technically he wasn't a founding member. Jeff Jones founded Rush with Alex Lifeson and John Rutsey in August 1968, as explained here and here. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Live Performances

Anyone have any heartache in removing the following: "The band members' coordinated use of pedal keyboards and other electronic triggers to "play" sampled instruments and audio events was subtly visible in their live performances, especially so on R30: 30th Anniversary World Tour, their 2005 concert DVD."? I've researched this up and down multiple times and can't find anything out there to support. I think we all know it to be true, but there isn't anything that specifically addresses it. Lastly, I see no reason to single out R30, when it's more or less true for all of their live performances. And finally (or lastly lastly), the 'Citation Needed' tag has been there for 4 years. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe this is covered in the 2010 Beyond the Lighted Stage documentary about the band. This article and excerpts from ebooks (Rush FAQ, Experiencing Rush) discuss their use of pedals to play samples and sounds. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Obviously I'm not a very good researcher :D BigJoeRockHead (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Music Hall of Fame

Regarding the wikilink to Canadian Music Hall of Fame, would anyone take issue with changing it to -> Canadian_Music_Hall_of_Fame#1994? Or, adding the wikilink to 1994? BigJoeRockHead (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Other links like this are not piped. Link the year or nothing here, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

2022

Should 2022 be considered as an active year? It's because Rush surviving members Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson made a suprise appearance as Rush at the South Park 25th Anniversary concert in 2022. GTAGamer245 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should, as it is more a partial reunion. If Peart was there, it would be a completely different story. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Activity dates

(No disrespect meant to the "2022" section above, but this is a related, but separate and broader issue.)

Presently the infobox claims Rush was active 1968-2018. I think this is dubious, and doesn't really reflect the text of the article. Rush did not perform again after August 1, 2015 (barring the one-off 2022 reunion). Neil Peart described himself as retired in December 2015 (Lee hedged on this at the time, but the band's website currently affirms this retirement). Peart's cancer diagnosis sometime in 2016 ruled out a return from retirement.

Essentially, Rush was inactive from late 2015, and a return to activity (at least in the band's best-known trio configuration) became impossible in 2016. The 2018 date seems to be based on a January 2018 interview with Lifeson, where he passingly remarked that there were no plans for further touring or recording by Rush. But this was not the first or the last time such statements were made, and Peart's retirement and illness meant that the band was de facto over well before then. It seems to me that 2018 isn't when Rush actually ended activity, but rather when the weight of evidence became such that fans and other band-watchers accepted that the band would not return. In the absence of an official statement that the band has disbanded- very unlikely- I think it makes the most sense to list the band's period of activity as 1968-2015 (and maybe an isolated 2022, for the partial reunion appearance). Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Lifeson confirmed that the band was over in 2018 though, and while Peart's diagnosis went on, the band were not ruling out anything in the future until 2018 when Lifeson confirmed the end of the band. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is "inactive but not explicitly ruling out further activity" the same as "active," though? In what sense was Rush active between 2015 and 2018, except in that hypothetical sense? Lifeson didn't even unequivocally rule out any further activity in 2018- he just said they had nothing planned. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's what things look like to me:

-August 2015: Rush plays their final show. This is the last time the band is meaningfully active.

-December 2015: Peart says he's retiring. Lee soft-pedals the remark a day later, but Peart never takes it back himself.

-March 2016: Lifeson says in an interview that the 2015 tour was the band's last large-scale tour, reinforcing statements he had made in April 2015 (before the tour had ended) to the same effect.

-Later in 2016: Peart is diagnosed with cancer, precluding a return from retirement.

-January 2018: Lifeson states in an interview that the band had "no plans" to return to activity.

-October 2018: Lee says in an interview that there are "zero plans to tour again."

-January 2020: Peart dies.

So- Rush unambiguously ceased activity in 2015. It became impossible for Rush to return to activity in 2016. I don't see a clear reason to latch onto the 2018 Lifeson interview as an "end of activity" date, either in the lead or the infobox- because, contrary to how the article currently frames it, it was not an official statement that the band was over; because the fact that the band was over in 2018 is hardly evidence that it was extant and active in 2017 or 2016- Lifeson did not say "Rush is now officially ending as of my making this statement," he just confirmed that the band had ceased activity and had no plans return; and because he didn't even explicitly rule out further activity- he just said there were no plans for it.

There's no "official disbandment statement" here- the band just ceased touring and recording and the band members later made remarks indicating that they weren't going to start again. I suspect the January 2018 date was latched onto in the past as, by that point, after over two years of inactivity, band-watchers were willing to accept that "no plans" now meant "for good." But there's no particular reason to favor it now, at least absent quality secondary sources that treat 2018 as the year of the band's conclusion. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Just because Neil announced his retirement in 2015 doesn't mean that Rush immediately came to an end. Even if Geddy and Alex didn't seem to be looking for a potential replacement or fill-in for Neil, not only was the band not ruling out any future tours (as User:HorrorLover555 already indicated) but nobody knew that Rush was finished until January 2018, and therefore I consider 2018 to be the correct date of disbandment not 2015. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"The band ceased activity in 2015, but it wasn't public knowledge that the band would not return to activity until 2018" is a very different statement than "the band continued activity until 2018." Basically, the way I see this:

-the field in the infobox is for "activity," not "official formation/disbandment dates"- and it is not disputed that the band ceased activity in 2015- they did not perform or record after 2015;

-Lifeson's 2018 statement was not an official statement that the band had broken up- he merely confirmed in an interview that the band had no further plans as of his speaking;

-further, while Lifeson said the band had no plans, he also didn't definitively rule out future activity in that interview, either;

-even further, Lifeson's statement is not actually evidence that the band was active or extant between 2015 and 2018- he confirmed that the band had ceased activity by the time he was speaking, but the fact that the band had ceased activity by 2018 is not at all evidence that it was active in 2017, for example, any more than for one to say "Abraham Lincoln is dead" right now is evidence that Abraham Lincoln was alive in 2022.

Yet further- the article also presently cites a later-2018 interview with Lee where he was a lot more equivocal about the band's future, saying "I would say there's no chance of seeing Rush on tour again as Alex, Geddy, Neil. But would you see one of us or two of us or three of us? That's possible." Both Lee's and Lifeson's interviews at least implicitly left the door open to future Rush activity of a sort, refusing to rule it out entirely, even as they stated the band had no current plans. I think portraying either interview as anything like an official statement of the band's ending is thus interpreting the speaker's words in a way that's at least borderline original research- it's putting a spin on their words in a way that they themselves avoided; neither of them came out and explicitly said "Rush is over for good."

So- I believe the text of the article states pretty clearly that the band's activity ceased in 2015, and the infobox should reflect that. We have good sources that 2015 was the last time the band was active in any meaningful sense- the last time the three band members performed music together as a group. I believe the 2018 date is shaky, given my reasoning above, and that the use of the date is, basically, a WP editor's (or editors') interpretation of primary source material (the Lifeson interview in question), rather than a date backed by good-quality secondary sources (of which there is, unfortunately, a dearth, not uncommonly for popular music). (Martin Popoff's Driven is the only book in the bibliography to both postdate and cover the band's end- I'd be curious what it has to say.)

Pinging @Mr. C.C.: and @HorrorLover555: also, as they've expressed takes on this recently. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This debate has been going on since Peart first announced his retirement in 2015, because Lee and Lifeson both tried to walk that back and left the door open to more activity on a smaller scale. Maybe they really were done in 2015, or maybe they were just intending to take a break and figure out how to do things less intensely, or maybe they were trying to work out how to continue without Peart, we don't know. We have to go by what the members of the band actually said; interpreting their words or their activities is original research. They didn't, as a unit, agree that they were finished until Lifeson said so in 2018, and that's the date we should use. Remember that Peart also retired in 1997, but we don't omit that five-year period from "activity". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that specifically to read Lifeson's 2018 remarks as confirmation that the band ended as of his statement (in 2018) does require an active work of interpretation, as I think the more obvious reading, in context, has him confirming that the band would not resume activity after having concluded in 2015. In 2018, Lifeson said that "After 41 years, we felt it was enough."- and the 41 years must be counting from Peart's joining (1974) to the final tour (2015). If he meant the band was ending its activity in 2018, would he not have said "after 50 years" (counting from the band's original 1968 foundation) or "after 44 years" (counting from Peart's joining)? Is the more obvious meaning not that the band decided to call it a day after 41 years of activity, 1974-2015? Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(I'm aware I've made arguments from multiple angles here, for which I apologize- I'm not trying to be vexatious so much as I think this matter is kind of vaguely framed- are we doing dates for "formation/disbandment" or "activity"? did the band end when they stopped playing, or when they decided not to play again? who gets to speak for the band, and whose remarks take priority? etc etc) Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with 2018 being the end of the band per Ivanvector. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector, I've extensively searched and read history, random facts, etc. on Rush. As we all know, Clockwork Angels was their last album. R40 Tour was their last tour because Neil Peart was retiring because he had chronic tendonitis and shoulder problems that wade made it hard for him. Even though Alex officially confirmed in 2018 that Rush basically done, Neil was retired for three-years the time of the announcement. Plus, Neil was battling cancer. He was diagnosed with brain cancer in August of 2016. He was given 12-18 months to live, but went to live a total of three and a half year total before his passing on January 7, 2020. So there was no door left open. A door wasn't not even built and let alone installed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yspaddadenpenkawr, where is your source that Geddy Lee "soft pedaled" (as you said) about Neil retiring? As you can see in my reply to Ivanvector, I stated why Neil Peart retired. Chronic tendonitis and shoulder problems. The way Neil played was difficult on his body. I've extensively researched and read history, random facts, etc. on Rush. Nowhere have I read what you claimed. So pony up a source. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I presume the user is talking about: "Rush's Geddy Lee Says Neil Peart Hasn't Retired". 8 December 2015. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. It kind of points up a problem I mentioned above, which is that there are no "official statements" on behalf of the band corporately here; instead we have to work with primary source statements by the individual band members, which aren't all consistent, and to decide which of them have the most weight and priority. Peart says he's retired in 2015, which rules out further Rush activity, at least in the three-piece format; Peart never "took back" his retirement himself, but Lee immediately went out to say "he didn't really mean it." Is there any particular reason we should prioritize Lifeson's 2018 comments as an end-date over Peart's 2015 retirement comments, given that we now know that Peart didn't (and couldn't have) return from retirement, and that Peart never retracted his retirement comments himself? Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I was previously in favor of 2018 being Rush's final year, but I have to admit that Lifeson's words in 2018 are not what I would call an "official statement" by the band. Depending on your point of view, it could be considered a retrospective acknowledgment of an accomplished fact, the band's termination in 2015, especially if we consider that in the same year Peart announced his retirement, even if Lee "soft pedaled" it. I'll have to think about it. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have found evidence supporting your position which should settle the matter for good. In July 2021, Alex did an interview with Eddie Trunk in which he stated "But I think, really, Rush ended in 2015." 68.194.153.220 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, based on the evidence provided, it'd probably be wise to open up another sub-section and ask everyone their preferences with reasoning on why it should be either 2015 or 2018. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

History

Jeff Jones was the first bassist for a couple of gigs, then Geddy, then Rush broke up and became "Hadrian" without Geddy. Geddy notes he was hanging out with an Oscar Peterson, "the first Black Person I'd ever known." So it's increasingly likely that the very common name "Jeff Jones" doesn't refer to the later Ocean and Red Rider bassist. From Geddy's autobiography, page 111. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.244.35.13 (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's the same Jeff Jones. He said in an interview that he met Lee and Peart many years later. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Influences

The main characters of the TV series The Expanse gave names to the weaponry aboard their space frigate: Lee, Peart, and Lifeson. 76.215.47.64 (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok - feel free to write this up with citations from publications. Ckruschke (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Ckruschke