Talk:Rush (band)/Archive 1

message: Rush (1974)
Fly by Night (1975)
Caress of Steel (1975)
2112 (1976)
All The World's a Stage (Live)(1976)
A Farewell to Kings (1977)
Hemispheres (1978)
Permanent Waves (1980)
Exit Stage Left (Live)(1981)
Moving Pictures (1981)
Signals (1982)
Grace under Pressure (1984)
Power Windows (1985)
Hold your Fire (1987)
A Show of Hands (Live)
Presto (1989)
Roll the Bones (1991)
Counterparts (1993)
Test for Echo (1996)
Different Stages (Live)
Vapor Trails (2002)
Rush In Rio (Live)(2004)
Feedback (2005)
R30 (Live)(2005)
:Can I note that the discography on the main page doesn't include all of the singles, just "Not Fade Away" and "Closer to the Heart".  Can someone in the know duplicate the (exemplary) album table for singles?  Also we need to decide on "Feedback" - it's an EP but do we include it as an album or not?  & if not where?  "Other releases" is too vague & it's too "big" for singles...  
:Maybe a Rush Discography page is warranted in which case we need to detail releases & chart positions in the major markets US, UK, Japan?, and Canada (of course in this case) thoughts? Megamanic 09:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres a warners investor note stating Vapour Trails gone gold and amazon categorises Feedback as an EP --KaptKos 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The Warner release I suppose validates it's status although I find it odd that RIAA still hasn't updated their database to reflect that after all this time. Last figure I saw was around the 440K+ range, so maybe it's close enough. Regarding Feedback, given its apparent status as an EP, does that disqualify it as a studio album? Anyone with any opinions regarding including it in the Rush canon? Or should it remain as "Other"? Incidentally, should a table of video sales also be included? ESL has gone G, ASOH is P, Chronicles is P, RIR is M(5), and R30 M(3). (Note that video certification is G-50,000, P-100,000, M(x)-100,000*x.) RIR and R30 sales show a lot of fan support still exists. McJaje 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: I read somewhere that Geddy Lee was in fact not in the original group, and that it was actually John Rutsey, Alex Lifeson, and a man named Jeff Jones. I found it on http://www.nimitz.net/rush/faq2ans.html#48 . Is this true? Spaceboy492 03:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's also what it says in the article. Long story made short, up until 1973 or so, Geddy and Lerxst were both members of various abortive bands before finally forming Rush with John Rutsey. The Lifeson/Rutsey/Jones lineup apparently also went the name "Rush". It's interesting to note that Rush celebrated their 30th anniversary in 2004, meaning anything before 1974 doesn't count for them. 1974 was the release of their self-titled debut album as well as the joining of Neil Peart. — Phil Welch 03:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think I may have found our Jeff Jones. http://www.jeff-jones.com/ . Not too hard of a find. :)  He's from Toronto, and he's worked with Terry Brown, Rush's producer. He plays the bass and does vocals. His age may be the same, too. It may just be coincidence, but I don't think so. Spaceboy492 16:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding Members 

message: I like this section, although when we start adding citations, references, interviews, and so on, it might have to see a rewrite in some areas. That's just my prediction. Deckiller 21:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I can think of two major things that need to be done: first, we need to get the article cited (I'll try and start on that tonight).  Second, we need to decrease the sheer amoung of anon edits made to the history section: it really needs stability. Deckiller 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah okay; they're great edits, but I thought they were from different users.  Yeah, the history section does look better now. Deckiller 12:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's looking pretty good; I'd say it's just about fleshed out enough to attain to the comprehensive standard of FA.  I'll start citations tonight, since the Patriots FA has passed. Deckiller 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tonight, after a meeting, I shall get to work with citations.  This page will be featured by the end of the month. Deckiller 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I begin, a few notes:
#The prose is outstanding; it clearly fits the "brilliant" category.  However, there are some weasel words and whatnot, including a few minor POV issues that will be solved with citations (most likely).
#The lead may need a slight tuneup; I'll see what I can do.
#I'll list more later; peer review will really help us out methinks. Deckiller 22:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If necessary, we can add that and/or move it to its own page. It all depends on what the peer review says, although we sill have to get the citations first :) I'll definiately try and work on it, but my wikitasks have been somewhat numerous lately. Deckiller 20:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's sort of a systematic bias WRT the mid-to-late 80's albums. Power Windows and Hold Your Fire aren't nearly as popular as their later or earlier albums. — Phil Welch 20:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs a some POV fixes, which, again, can be fixed once all sources are cited. Deckiller 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. The more items are covered in a concise manner, the better chances we'll have of meeting the second FA standard. Deckiller 16:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status 

message: Your removal of the heavy metal references puzzled me I thought I'd ask a quick question.(or 2) Your remark 'Heavy Metal my rear' would seem to indicate POV rather than an edit based on some sort of cited evidence. I DO agree Rush are not a heavy metal band now. But they started out as one.(or at least what was considered heavy metal at the time) I can remember reading music magazines like Creem and Rolling Stone back through the 70's. They would have 'special heavy metal issues' periodically to highlight the genre and Rush was always listed as one of the premier examples of the genre. They are not heavy metal anymore. But they also really aren't a 'Progressive Rock' band anymore...and yet you left that reference alone as if it were still current. If you remove heavy metal because it doesn't apply anymore...by that reasoning...shouldn't you have removed the prog category too? Perhaps it should be a matter for the this talk page? Are there any other regular Rush editors who want to comment on which cateories they think apply to Rush. The career has changed so much in 30+ years, they would probably fall into several I would think. Anyone else? Anger22 11:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were probably most like heavy metal on their first album, before Peart. However, 2112 (which launched their career) is certainly prog rock, and not a single one of their singles in memory was heavy metal. If you call Rush heavy metal, you have to apply that label to a number of bands, including most classic rock. In addition, metal, by its very definition, is "simple." Rush's sound has always been complex. I could not imagine a mosh pit, one of the metal staples, at a Rush concert, especially considering the erudite lyrics and complex guitar and drum beats that Rush employs. Rush bears very little similarity to metal. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But by that arguement, as I posted before, they are no longer a progressive rock band either...by standard definition of progressive rock that is. They no longer compose epic length songs or concept albums. Nor do they compose music that has extended instrumental breaks in them. They don't fit into either style of music anymore but their footprint in both genres is undeniable. I saw RUSH(twice) on their 2112 tour. Saw them again on their Hemisperes tour as well and you're right...there wasn't a mosh pit back then. But there was certainly a lot of headbanging going on. You seem to have, and correct me if I'm wrong, removed the heavy metal references as if you believe that it was some kind of insult to have them there. Which would be POV on your part. Rush themselves have had no aversion to doing interviews with RIP and Hit Parader and Circus and countless other magazines that devote themselves to heavy metal(and all it's sub-genres) It would seem they know their own place in that wide-spread genre. I am curious to whether anyone else has opinion on this. Anger22 14:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for being off-topic, but I'm noticing a (very common on Wikipedia) pattern here. Your version of the page is NPOV. Mine is POV. Why is this? By what objective standard of heavy metal are you saying that Rush is part of this genre? What specific song do you think fits whatever criteria you have set for it? Rush's first big hit, "2112", was certainly prog rock. Many subsequent songs, such as Xanadu, etc., were prog rock. Their big singles, like "Freewill", "Limelight", "The Spirit of Radio", etc., while not extended in length, still could be considered prog rock. I can't recall a single successful single or album of Rush's that most people would consider heavy metal. Can you provide these instances, and give some support from critics for it? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the NPOV POV thing...from the best I can understand...pages are supposed to have NPOV(no point of view) but sometimes a contributor can accidently express his POV(point of view. You did neither really, it was your comment that eluded to it. And as far as I can see I have no version of the page myself. I simply asked a question regarding the removal of a piece of an article that has been there for a while without anyone taking exception to it I don't believe in edit wars. That's why there's a talk page. Anyway as for a reference. The introduction in the book "Visions-The Official Biography of RUSH" By Bill Banasiewicz published in 1988 has this written on its back cover A)"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."  That's from their official biography. Will that work? Anger22 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for BorgHunter 

message: Isn't rush also math rock?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.219.157 (talk • contribs) 
:Generally, their later work may have touched on it, but they are generally considered Progressive rock. From what I've read, Math Rock is sort of the next generation of Prog Rock, along with Prog Metal and Industrial. Deckiller 23:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My own POV on that, and I stress my POV, is that when I hear the term "math rock" the first 2 bands that pop into my head are Dillinger Escape Plan and Meshuggah. I don't know if that is what math rock is all about but I do know that Rush sound nothing at all like either of those 2 extremely technical bands. Like I said...my POV. Someone else can correct me on my 2 examples. Anger22 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Math rock

message: In order to help diversify the article a little bit, I added this section. If anybody can think of any other appropriate additions please feel free to include them. Wisdom89 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: If any of those references are geared toward less than, say, three or four statements, it's probably good to insert them as a footnote. Deckiller 20:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're also going to want to cite album sales, the final part of the lead section, etc. Deckiller 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: This article just gets better and better. FA status is not far away. I was just wondering though...concerning the section titled Return to form (1989-1997). Is it just me, or does this seem to indicate that the previous era The Synthesizer period (1982-1989) was somehow sub par??? I've been a Rush fan since 1975. And I know I enjoyed their 80's period just as much as I enjoyed any other period in their career. somehow 'return to form' almost seems like it means 'return to greatness' or 'back from a bad place'. Does anyone else get that sort of meaning out of that? Also, on the  topic of section titles. There seems to be an inconsistency when it comes to capitalization of different words. Is this in keeping with other wiki-articles? or just bad grammar? Anger22 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I'm always a little paranoid about having headings like this (I was asked to remove them for the Patriots FA). And yes, the Synthesizer Period was godly :) Deckiller 23:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a section title like "Back to the basics (1989-1997)" or something similar be 'less insulting' to the previous period? Or perhaps altering "The Synthesizer period" to say something like "Changing styles"??? I'm just grasping at words now. any thoughts? And by 'godly' you mean excellent right? Anger22 23:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any of the headings are particularly insulting, but they are implicitly POV. I think it would suffice to just use the year ranges as headers. MFNickster 19:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent, yes ^_^. Changing styles sounds good. Deckiller 23:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why thank you! There's a few editors working hard on this article I'm not about to step in and start altering what is already an excellent and in-depth bio. I'm glad wiki has talk pages. It's about the only place where democracy still works :)  Anger22 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah. I basically passed the torch along a couple months ago; now I mainly do minor edits to this article, although I still want to boost the references section with Wisdom ^_^. Deckiller 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about the section titles 

message: Rush fans are quite aware of the storyline behind the Fear 'trilogy'. Most know the reverse order of the original three tracks AND the additional chapter introduced on Vapor  Trails. However, in the first refence to the Fear storyline(in the overview of Moving Pictures), it refers to Part 3 of a 4 part trilogy. I know what it's trying to say. But I'm guessing a newcomer here to learn about Rush for the first time is going to read that and think..."What kind of dumbass band wrote a 4 part trilogy?" It used to say multi-part. In my elderly mind that is probably the best way to describe it...so far. Anyone else? Anger22 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're way behind in the history of the original post. Someone mistakingly changed an earlier version of the Rush article and made a reference to Fear being a 4 part trilogy.(which is wrong in more ways than 1) It was corrected back to multi-part...and later removed altogether as part of the FA status project. Anger22 09:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 4 of a Trilogy??? 

message: How close does everyone think we are to putting this through the FA process? It's really shaping up. The references section really pleases me. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it!!! :) Deckiller 20:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How ready? 

message: Anyone object to moving all the citations to follow punctuation,[1] like this?[2]  That is way it's done in print sources, most FAs, and according to the Chicago Manual of Style.  —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inline citations 

message: does the hiatus start with the release of TFE or the end of the TFE tour? The left the road in 1997 came back with Vapor Trails in 2002. By my subtraction thats 5. and I'm just being nit picky. thoughts? Anger22 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oops it changed again...ignore my typing frenzy :) Anger22 03:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's five...actually, technically it's four, since they went on the hiatus in August of 1997 and started working on Vapor Trails in the summer of 2000. At least, that's what Alex said on one of the R30 interviews ^_^. "Geddy was working on My Favourite Headache", which was mid-2000. Deckiller 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: either which way as long as it's consistent. there's a ton of activity among the main editors on this page right now....I'm not about to change a . of it without asking here first. All you guys seem to have the gameplay down...it just gets better n better. no need for vandal reverters like me messing up a good thing.(unless of course someone vandalizes it) I'm glad Wiki has talk pages. Anger22 03:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 year hiatus vs 6 year hiatus 

message: I nearly choked when I read that AMG wasn't considered a reliable source. A bit of a snag in the road. Considering that the bulk of music bios on Wikipedia are just re-writes(and in some cases..blatant copies) of All Music Guide bios you would think it's credibilty as a source would not be in question. 'Prefer sources from music magazines and publications'??? Isn't AMG an 'online' magazine? And a highly respected one at that! Hope this doesn't ruin all the hard work you guys have put into getting this FA deserving article FA'd. Good Luck! Anger22 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I promise, I'm not making it up =).  Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Céline Dion/Archive2.  Before it made it to featured status, I believe all of its AMG citations were removed. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Music Guide as a source 

message: After perusing the internet for citations, I noticed that some of the text in the Rush article is plagiarized from the following website: http://www.artistopia.com/Music-Artists/Pros/Bio.asp?ID=574&Name=Rush
This is alarming considering this page is up for acceptance as a featured article. It's unacceptable. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing it. Most of the sections in question have existed in the article for some time, likely up to a year or more. Perhaps something should be done about it Wisdom89 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the bottom of that article - it is a copy from Wikipedia (although it doesn't seem to use the correct attribution format).  Noisy | Talk 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Why the rv on the detailed band members section. I thought Wisdom89's edit was perfect and something that should have been done a long time ago. It mirrored Rush's own album liner notes. That is the way Rush has depicted their duties within the band. Was it brought up in a discussion? If it were me I'd rv it back. But as I've mentioned previously...too many editors(cooks) spoil the article(meal). Anger22 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you were already thinking the same thing I see...Anger22 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed I was. Now that we're on the subject of that small section, how do you feel about it being moved towards the very top, preceding the Musical Style description? It strikes me as a more logical location for it. Wisdom89 01:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works!..IMHO. Has a good flow...Band Members->Musical Style->Reputation. Someone else may have a different opinion but for me it makes sense. Anger22 01:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Band Members

message: Just condensed the Rutsey era section as I still think all history sections are too long, the full history article can be as detailed as you like.  If no one objects to this I will give the other history sections a similar trimming, but I don’t want to tread on anyone’s toes as I know of the sterling work some of you guys have been putting in.KaptKos 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just leave the history section the way it is to be perfectly honest, and just concentrate on including details in the extended section Wisdom89 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, all of the sections are fairly balanced in lenght now.  I think it was just the first one that was buggin meKaptKos 10:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section

message: Please note I have changed the references to use Meta:Cite.php.  See Wikipedia:Footnotes for usage--KaptKos 13:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I diagree with this heading :). I think it should say "Return to roots" or something along those lines. — Deckiller 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is "Back to Basics" not something along those lines?:)--KaptKos 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Basics" may seem a bit POV (some people may find their earlier stuff deeper than their 80s stuff, you never know) :) — Deckiller 11:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I thought it was a bit like splitting hairs but I see your point I'll gladly go along with yours.  (Still thought Lifeson Unleashed was pretty cool though:))--KaptKos 11:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eh...Back to Basics?

message: Just deleted a sentence that was highlighted on the FAC page as a problem, it being unsourced.  IMO the article is not any the less without it  --KaptKos 21:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC stuff  

message: It's featured :) — Deckiller 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to Wisdom89, Deckiller, Borghunter, KaptKos, Spangineer et al who went the above n beyond route to get this little gem that FA star. Well deserved!!!! Anger22 03:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very excellent. Great work guys Wisdom89 08:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic! Well done everyone:)--KaptKos 09:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: Since the whole "poetic, Un-cited POV" thing is fresh in everyone's mind. If anyone gets a chance they should browse through the Rush discography. The early albums seem OK but the later releases, especially the 80s, have a fair share of POV, weasel words, original research and not a citation to be found. I quickly cleaned out a couple(Signals was oozing poetic crap galour) but don't have much time to fine tune the others. Good Luck! Anger22 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Album articles lack NPOV

message: I wasn't a fan of the replaced image but the new one is very poor, IMO.  Any thoughts?--KaptKos 09:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should volunteer to go to the next Rush concert and take a high-quality photograph. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone could volunterr to remove the current image and replace it with something better Wisdom89 20:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How bout moving this one up :Image:Rush R30 2004.jpg, its a nice, moody, current image and they don't look like dorks which, IMHO, they did in the replaced image.  Whats the big deal bout the new one being free use anyway? The old one, and this, are promos, so whats the problem?--KaptKos 10:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Wisdom89 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats a pretty good reason:)--KaptKos 06:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid the current lead image appearing twice I stuck the free image I was giving out about into the Hiatus section.  I think it looks pretty good where it is now, and it shows the boys can still RAWK (well Alex anyway!;), it just sucked as lead image--KaptKos 06:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New lead image

message: I offer my comments here for consideration with the understanding that I may be 'offbase'. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this article isn't sufficiently objective about Rush. It seems to reflect the perspective of a small percentage of Rush fans, namely the diehards who refuse to acknowledge the radical decline in the uniqueness of Rush's sound after 1981's Moving Pictures album. 'Vital Signs', a medicore track at the end of Moving Pictures, seemed to signal the direction the band was headed. The 'Vital Signs sound', with it's muted guitar and heavy synth accompaniment, would be typical of Rush in the creatively empty years to follow. Rush never produced any original music of note after it's last gasps of creativity on 1982's "Signals" ("New World Man" and "Subdivisions" - decent overproduced synth tracks). They have however put out some great nostalgia albums in recent years (great live albums featuring 70s era Rush, and an awesome album of cover tunes from the Haight Ashbury era).
:Well, we have to maintain a neutral point of view, which means we can't base it on either opinion; we have to state the musical facts. — Deckiller 05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your having a negative opinion about the band after Moving Pictures constitutes a fairer and more accurate perspective? The article does not concern itself with any one person's opinion. The guideline of WP:NPOV requires all opinions to be represented - and the article certainly makes mention of the more negative viewpoints on Rush's "artistic decline". Please see the reputation section. Wisdom89 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too 'Pro Rush'? 

message: I don't want to make a silly change if this is a house style or something, I'm quite a new user, but can anyone tell my why it's Rush 'is' a band.
Surely something like "the Beatles is a band which changed popular music for the better" would be ridiculous? Why are Rush different, and why isn't it "Rush are a band"?
22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you write "Pink Floyd are a band"? Why's it different from that? BabuBhatt 22:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would write "Pink Floyd are a band" as opposed to "Pink Floyd is a band". Or are you just agreeing with the original point? Syxx 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pink Floyd "is" a band. The Beatles "is" a band. The Rolling Stones "is" a band. Rush "is" a band. No band is plural. BabuBhatt 23:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole singular-plural/American-British vernacular argument has been squeezed dry. The difference essentially boils down to preference in the end, but seeing as though the entire article is written in an American format, why should it conform to British variances? Wisdom89 23:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:BITE.  As a relatively new user, you can be forgiven for not knowing the style guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties ofEnglish.  Americans basically say "X is a band" where the British say "X are a band".  It's just a regional difference, and nothing to lose sleep over.  See American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns.  And the general rule is that the usage should reflect the geographical origin of the article's subject.  Rush are from Canada, hence North American usage prevails. --Richardrj talk email 07:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rush 'is' a band? I is not so sure....

message: No word on the (vinyl) album from the 70's/80's allegedly containing a bunch of mixed up songs on each side of the disc.  Is this an urban legend, or did such an album exist?
:There are a couple bootlegs by that name, but no release. There was a Rush release for south america nad parts of europe called Rush through Time, but that's different. (and I've got a copy.) ThuranX 04:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember discussions online about this way back in the early 90's - my understanding was that it was a radio promo that was pressed with the tracks running side by side rather than one after the other so that you wouldn't know which track the needle would land in.    I haven't located any source to cite on this right now Terrymr 03:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a hell of a promo. However, the only google results I get are for the 1979 PinkPop bootleg. ThuranX 05:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah - the discussion I remember about it was pre-web back when we all subscribed to an email digest called the National Midnight Star - maybe its archived somewhere.  I'll see what I can find Terrymr 06:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Found it quicker than I thought : http://www.white-barn.com/nms/html/nms_483.htm#RUSH'N'ROULETTE  Terrymr 06:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Album: Russian (Rush-ian) Roulette

message: Wasn't Rush a featured article months and months ago? Why is it up again? I just checked, it was features ono 9 april 2006!ThuranX 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That can happen. I think. Master of Puppets The Walrus! 01:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: April 9th was when the article was promoted to featured article status - it has never been featured on the main page Wisdom89 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could've sworn that it was, because i recall seeing it on the front after the article's editors worked towards the Feat.Stat., and thinking 'hey, it happened!'... but I might be wrong. ThuranX 01:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Rush! They should be the featured article every day!--Hooligans 02:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TWICE??? 

message: Congratulations on crafting an excellent article. —Wrathchild (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: I took out the word eponymous because it was not being used like the examples given at dictionary.com.
It's a cool word but someone will have to rearrange the sentence if they want to use it. --Gbleem 03:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eponymous 

message: Great work to the editors who crafted the article. BabuBhatt 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great job

message: On the main page where this article is featured, it says "Rush has been awarded the Juno Award several times" well, there's lots of dirrefernt types of Junos, thats like saying they won the Grammy Award several times. I'm prety sure that should be reworded... --Thankyoubaby 05:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Juno Award? 

message: Are the gold and platinum certifications listed in the opening section for U.S., Canada, or all territories? Infamous30 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold and Platinum 

message: Rush is so loved that even being on the main page isn't bringing alot of vandalism. lol I love it. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting RSS from clicking my watchlist, but I see Angers on patrol so Vandals beware! --KaptKos 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooo they'll all be scared now :) If anyone toys with it..it'll rollback so fast their head will spin. Kudos to everyone who had the night shift. So far the "good" edits have been OK. This is nothing compared to the day Pink Floyd went front page. That was an rv nightmare. Take care! Anger22 12:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I love it 

message: "Since the release of their eponymous debut in 1974, the band has become well-known for their instrumental virtuosity, complex compositions, erudite lyrics, and inspirational camaraderie. Rush's three decades of continued success under their current lineup of Lee, Lifeson, and Peart has earned the band the respect of their musical peers, and their supporters are often cited as some of the most intensely loyal in rock."
- This reads like splurge from one of their "intensely loyal" fans than an encyclopedia article. What is "inspirational camaraderie" for example? Erudite lyrics? Puh-leese! Just because someone tries to write clever lyrics doesn't mean that they come out this way. If I wrote an article saying that the lead singer has a screechy voice which sounds as if it hadn't broken, and their songs are ever so slightly overstretched in many cases, people would complain/remove it, but when someone puts this vomit inducing eulogy on the front page we're supposed to  put up with it? --MacRusgail 14:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree - this type of fanboy blather has no place in an encyclopedia, and certainly should not be in an article with FA status. --Richardrj talk email 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it? —BorgHunter  (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's basically all that has to be done — fanboys add their stuff, but it's easily removed. — Deckiller 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish it were so easy. I'm probably on a hit list already for pointing this out, and no doubt the order has gone out on fan boards to monitor this article 24/7. --MacRusgail 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All praise the almighty Rush

message: Eh, maybe a nice quote is from "Hammer of the Gods" in which Jimmy page says Rush is his favorite band. I'll leave it to you look it up, if you like...--Ling.Nut 15:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammer of the Gods 

message: Some one erased the whole article and put in "Rush blows". Very funny but thanks to whoever changed it back.Typhoid Orchid 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Save

message: I've noticed a number of articles (such as this one and the Iron Maiden one) using singular words to refer to the band (as in "Rush is one fo the most influential bands of all-time" or similar) followed almost immediately by things like "Their music has...". Is this an Americanism I've previously missed or just some strange grammar? 155.136.80.163 17:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically in American English (either written or spoken vernacular), the band is treated as a single entity, but after the collective has been established as in the case of a band, or if it becomes obvious that the sentence stresses the members instead of the collective, the words "their" or "they" maybe used in place of "it" Wisdom89 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular/Plural 

message: I was looking over at Dream Theater, and they'vegot a section on bootlegging and band thoughts on it. Should we add one to this article, given the long history of bootlegging for Rush, including the various european silverdisc makers, and the DRE, and so on? ThuranX 04:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bootlegging 

message: I was just wondering if some sort of trivia section could be added to the page regarding references in pop cultures, such as Meatwad from Aqua Teen Hunger Force having an affinity for the band. 152.163.100.137 21:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a pop culture section many moons ago, but it was recommended that it be spun out of the main article to reduce swelling of the text - There is now a separate article for that kind of information. Please see the "See Also" section Wisdom89 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've condensed this section cause its a bit nuts for this, which is about stuff that might be going to happen, to be the same size, if not larger, than the other sections which are about things that have actually happened and what the band has produced.  Can't wait for the allbum to be released so all this section will be is "They plan to go on tour promoting the new album".  --KaptKos 08:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely an improvement - I've been saying to myself for a while that the section was ballooning, and in desperate need of a thorough pruning. Good show. Wisdom89 15:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future Plans

message: I thought the discography took up too much space, so I moved most of it to the Rush discography page. Same with the history of rush (Metnever)
:This wasn't linked to from this page so I've done that - I've also added a singles section to your discography page & some singles that have their own pages but weren't linked properly. Megamanic 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine; why did you delete so much of the history section?BabuBhatt 00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, realized that was another "editor". BabuBhatt 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at Rush Discography :) Megamanic 02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: The overall structure/content of the article was set out and built on during the articles FA process. A tweak here, an update there...great. Wholesale changes/alteration are not required. Anger22 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why you would want to do that but there are some significant improvements that could still be made to the article and I wouldn't want to put off contributors by continual reversion.  One thing I'd like to see is the discography done as a separate page with more detail (ALL of the singles please, with 'B' sides) and replaced on the main page with a gallery of album covers like the Aerosmith entry which would actually suit Rush better given that that's the paradigm that Rush themselves use.  Thoughts? Megamanic 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to say, I would not be a fan of the Aerosmith#Discography section, its chunky and guady(kinda like Aeorsmith these days) so I wouldn't be keen on this being changed that way. The table and the image of the albums(which is pretty unusual and therefore adds interest for the casual reader) are enough for me. A concerted drive to source Fair use images - now that would be an improvement--KaptKos 07:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually be in favor of expanding the article (if anything) with other sections that delve into the more interesting aspects of the band's career - live shows, lyrics, influence on contemporaries, things like that. Besides the obvious (i.e needed updates, grammar corrections, sentence structure, etc..etc.) this is how I would vote to improve the article. Changing the content therein isn't really necessary IMHO. Wisdom89 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, its often crossed my mind that a section on how the band exploit the visual spectrum, or the "Graphic Arts" as I like to describe it, would be an interesting ...mmmh...thing --KaptKos 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maintain the Featured Article structure

message: I'm not entirely sure it's necessary to list every genre the band has touched on throughout their career - even three in the info box seems a little extraneous if you ask me. I realize the band began as an early blues-heavy metal outfit, but I cannot in good faith refer to them as a heavy metal band since the group essentially pioneered the merger of hard rock and progressive rock during the 70's. This is what they are most known for. I'm just worried about glaring misnomers. I prefer the label of "traditional metal" over "heavy metal" since their roots more closely parallel the likes of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple, not Iron Maiden or Judas Priest. Am I alone in this? Wisdom89 20:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their own biography labels them as a heavy metal band. But I agree that the infobox genre entry should be a more general "all encompassing" quick ref as opposed to a detailed(overkilled) description of the bands genres. That they were a heavy metal band for the first 3-4 albums...no one can really argue. But I think that kind of detail is already covered in the main body of the article and plunking it into the infobox is a little deceiving. There are edit wars all over Wikipedia over infobox genres. There shouldn't be one here. Let's just pick 1 or 2 and be done woth it. Thoughts from anyone else?....Kap? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't want to turn this into a voting process, but I'd like to achieve consensus regarding this. Musically, Hard Rock and Progressive Rock seem to be adequate in covering the band in general, although there's that whole 80's synth pop rock era which kinda makes this more muddled than it needs to be. Tell me, should the info box list all associated genres while the first sentence in the lead narrows it down? If this is the case, then honestly should progressive rock be the band's defining genre? Is that misleading? Yes, they're mostly "known" as a progressive rock band, but doesn't the article ostensibly split the band's history according to genre transitions whereby "progressive rock" is merely a fraction? I'm just looking for discussion from the regular editors on this issue. Let me know what you guys think about this. Wisdom89 01:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good timing for the discussion. The musician project is having a similar "genre" discussion sparked by recent edit wars on numerous articles. I agree that the defining 'prog rock' tag is a bit misleading. Accurate for a certain period of Rush's career, but too all encompassing...like the heavy metal ref. The musician project is leaning towards genres/styles...styles being more definite sub-genres.(like All Music Guide) IE: Rush is a rock band that has played numerous styles including Heavy metal, Hard rock, Progressive rock, Synth rock, Top 40, Alternative rock, Rock and roll...etc, etc, etc. Rush are a hard one to peg since they've covered some many different sub-G's trying to lump them into 1 in either the lead or infobox is really not conveying the whole story. Anyone else? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't really get the obsession with pigeonholing bands.  Is it a control thing?  By sticking a band in a category are you somehow nullifying their power or nullifying their creativity?  More importantly DO WE CARE?  Look at some of the other bands around like, say, Primal Scream.  What the hell are they?  Rolling Clones, 'E'ed up dance rock, Heavy Dub Reggae or the sound of cyberpunk flying away to infinity on a Hawkwind riff?  The answer is "all of the above" depending on which album you listen to & Rush are similarly genre defying.  Call them rock in the about box & divide the career by "genres" - mind you I'd say the real breakpoint between old & new was Hemispheres - Permanent Waves not PW - Moving Pictures.  Just my 5c Megamanic 06:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genres

message: Seriously, this is the most biased, POS article I've read in my life. I mean my god just read the band members mini bios in this article. Yeah, this article reaches with fanboyisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.209.109 (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked this user, at his talkpage, to please explain here WHY the page isn't NPOV. We'll see if he replies. ThuranX 06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like you to consider that as the article was a featured article coming in and slapping NPOV on it is more akin to vandalism than anything else.  The article has received plenty of exhaustive reviews and passed them to become FA  the reviewers didn't think it NPOV therefore you shouldn't without a really good reason.  Discuss your reasons here & leave NPOV alone until weve addressed it Megamanic 06:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the trolls Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Hear him out. If he's a true troll, we can dismiss him easily, because either he won't show at all or his arguments will betray his 'troll-ness'. But, if he's got valid ideas, we should listen and respond. don't poke the fate bear. ThuranX 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid conversation put forth by Deckiller, or Wisdom89 or Kapt Kos re: NPOV would be a a postive thing. However this tag was placed by ...who is, in all likelyhood, the editor formerly located at IP ...which was the IP sock for blocked user ...who in turn was a tagged sock for blocked user . All that being said....Deckiller has put forth a prompt for discussion over "colourful adjectives" which I feel should be followed up on...under a new talk section header seperating it from this one which I feel was not initiated in good faith. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely sure there exists an over-use of flowery or colorful adjectives in the article - when I hear objections based on NPOV I immediately presume the complaint stems from an observation that there is a preponderance of positive spins over negative spins, which might actually be the case here. He steered us in the direction of the mini-bios as evidence for this objection - and while there are a few choice phrases which establish the existence of criticism in that section, the bulk of the text is laudatory. Am I correct in this observation, and that this is to blame for the NPOV tag?Wisdom89 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "colorful descriptions" or "unsourced complements" are better terms in this case — terms such as:
* "...the band has become known for their instrumental virtuosity, complex compositions and erudite lyrics."
* "Apart from prolific writing, musical influence, and instrumental prowess, Geddy Lee's high-register vocal style has always been a main signature of the band..."
To counter this concern, we might have to do some trimming and/or some sort of balancing act to neutralize criticism and praise. Perhaps cut the excess praise that we can't really source - that might be all we actually have to do. — Deckiller 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I tagged this article with a NPOV 

message: I know we already have a few ongoing discussions regarding possible content revisions, but this is something that I've wanted to bring up for a while now. Does anyone else feel that the lead should be rewritten to more closely conform to a summary style? Currently, much of it simply lists award highlights (albeit factually correct and sourced) about the band members. Honestly, who cares if all three members are Officers of the Order of Canada? Not necessary for the lead in my opinion. It should discuss, albeit succinctly, lyrics, themes and musical styles across the band's 30 year history. Does anybody object to this? Wisdom89 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and made some changes to the lead. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Wisdom89 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: The last part of the opener reads "Jim Ainsburg is their biggest fan." Im just wondering what this is about and if its vandalism, because there are no sources if its true :P Bliks 00:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Ainsburg