Talk:Rush (band)

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)

• Is that based on the American English sources above or something else? Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 01:55, 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)

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)

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)

I guess you guys do not read the actual article or care about accuracy - Closer to the Heart, Subdivisions, Tom Sawyer, Spirit of Radio and Limelight were the Rush songs inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame so although New World Man made Number 1 in Canada its lasting importance has fallen. Limelight is the 3rd most played Canadian song on Canadian radio from before 1988, but not worth listing this song. Number one albums in Canada - not worth mentioning. Quadruple platinum Moving Pictures in US - not worth mentioning. 2112 is their second biggest ablum at triple platinum - not worth mentioning. These "Leads" are not vague promos like Binksternet seems to want them to be; they are supposed to be encyclopedic summaries of the most important information - the more important the band, the longer it should be. If their was no body to the article, the lead is all that would exist. If a song is one of the biggest songs in Canadian rock history (Limelight; and probably Closer to the Heart) it should be mentioned in the lead for the band that did it. Or I guess you will now just delete the information from the body that supports my points above. That is what Binksternet did with the Alanis Morrisette article.Informed analysis (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)