Rush debut album 40th anniversary re-issue coming in 2014

Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2013 at 10:27AM

WELCOME ! Please Leave a comment

Page 1 of 2 - 1 2
20 items per page (10 50 100 ), Sorting by newest first (oldest first)
#36 - Posted 1/2/14 @12:29AM by Enigmaticus [contact]

#35.

Thank you. You've exposed the limitations of the music magazines of that time. Either you were in Hit Parader, or Circus, if you were not necessarily a pop band. It is only with the advent of the Internet and the rise of the "prog rock" community, which had precipitated the creation of "Prog" magazine, where Rush has finally started to get their well deserved respect as a "progressive rock" icon.

Of course, the Grammy Awards have recognized heavy metal for quite some time, but how long do you think it will take them to finally recognize "progressive rock?"
#35 - Posted 1/1/14 @6:18PM by What-A-Rush

#33- Yes 'Enigmaticus', you're absolutely correct on your point regarding the Rush fans of that era being offended by the "heavy metal" label that was placed on the band for the first 10 years of their career. Personally, I found it more humorous than "offensive". But I digress. Frankly, I was just happy to see them receive press coverage in the major rock mags of the day, notably Circus and Hit Parader. Truth be told, had those "metal" mags not featured Rush periodically, we never would've gotten ANY news on Rush. Perhaps it's just a matter of taking the good with the bad, so to speak.

And if we're being completely honest 'Enigmaticus', the guys didn't exactly shy away from doing interviews with mags such as the ones I mentioned above. In some ways, for the time, it was a necessary evil if a band/artist wanted to get the word out about their product. Also, perhaps some fans weren't interested in "musicians' mags" such as 'Guitar World', which featured Rush quite frequently as you know. Be that as it may, being a teen hard rocker at the time, I'd rather have read about Rush in the "metal" mags than '16'. Although '16' did feature KISS constantly, so that was pretty damn cool! But again, I digress. Great comments as always 'Enigmaticus'. Happy New Year to EVERYONE at RIAB!
#34 - Posted 1/1/14 @9:04AM by Enigmaticus [contact]

#31.

As far as the aforementioned albums are concerned, I would concur with those recordings as being great choices, especially "Exit... Stage Left."

link
#33 - Posted 1/1/14 @8:54AM by Enigmaticus [contact]

#31.

You know that many of us were offended whenever those earlier reviewers would label Rush as a heavy metal group. Once the Internet had started, I had joined, with other like minded individuals, to attempt to set the record straight:

link

That earlier reviewer had echoed the opinions of many individuals, at that time. Accordingly, I had never considered Rush to be a "heavy metal" band, under any circumstances whatsoever. I remember the band members had objected to this strongly, they had written, "We've never considered ourselves to be a heavy metal group; we feel that we've had more to offer than that."

Now, I would not deny that Rush's musical style may have changed over the years:

1968- 1975 heavy progressive rock
1975- 1976 heavy symphonic progressive rock
1977- 1981 symphonic progressive rock
1982- 1996 art rock
1996- 2014 eclectic progressive rock

But even so, Rush has been carrying that progressive rock torch for more than 4 decades.
#32 - Posted 12/27/13 @10:21PM by clockworkingman [contact]

#31. Thanks for sharing those memories. Those albums you bought between July 83 and October 84 may well be the greatest run of recorded music you ever purchased.

I agree with Simmons assessment of the first 2 Rush albums being 'the Canadian Zeppelin', though I think that promise is much more fulfilled on Fly by Night. I would argue that Rush would never sound that raw again until Vapor Trails.
#31 - Posted 12/27/13 @8:15PM by What-A-Rush

I remember vividly when this album came on my radar. It was the fall of 1984 when I was 14 years old. Earlier that year I had seen Rush for the first time on the 'Grace Under Pressure' tour. Prior to that I already had 'Moving Pictures', 'Exit...Stage Left', 'Signals', 'Grace Under Pressure', and 'Permanent Waves', the exact order I bought them between July 1983 and October 1984, respectively.

In November that year I read an article in a magazine called 'Pulse', the official magazine of the INFAMOUS Tower Records, that had KISS' Gene Simmons "rating the metal bands". One of the bands he "rated" was Rush, in which he stated their first two albums are his "favorite Rush albums where they were Canada's Led Zeppelin". Furthermore, he went on to say that he wasn't a big fan of what they did after that, specifically referring to their brand of "techno metal" that he had apparent disdain for. Nevertheless, it encouraged me to get those first two albums with my Tower Records gift certificate on Christmas night 1984. I remember thinking after hearing them that this was definitely a "different Rush", but a Rush that was no less appealing, realizing that as time went on they NEVER sounded like that EVER again, for better or worse, depending on your point-of-view.

In any event, both the first album and 'Fly By Night' were my first taste of "70's Rush" which definitely piqued my interest in getting the rest from that point onward! Good stuff! Thanks RIAB!
#30 - Posted 12/27/13 @1:26PM by idrum2 [contact]

Deluxe Edition! I vote early non-album singles, the live bootleg from Cleveland, and a rerecorded Feedback-like version of the album. Make the original album available on colored vinyl with a reproduction of the first 45.
#29 - Posted 12/27/13 @12:05PM by JediSushiChef [contact]

A bonus disc with lost tracks, baby! Garden Road, mofo!!!!
#28 - Posted 12/27/13 @11:55AM by clockworkingman [contact]

#27. Agreed! The first Rush album is big, dumb fun and unlike any other album in their catalogue.

I prefer hearing all those songs, though, on the Live at the Agora Ballroom bootleg. This is the most raw sounding I've ever heard Rush.
#27 - Posted 12/27/13 @11:49AM by joerock213 [contact]

This is one of the only Rush albums with real guts that makes you want to chug a gallon of beer and put your fist through a wall. Not taking away from the other albums with Neil, but this album kicks a. Tell me you haven't sat around with a guitar and tried to learn the songs from it.
#26 - Posted 12/27/13 @11:15AM by clockworkingman [contact]

I think that the Rush font from the debut album has been unofficially accepted as 'the Rush logo' even though it was probably never meant to be. I agree with some of the comments made below, that the font/logo used on an album cover reflects the changes and evolution of the band. For sure, the new font on an album cover is something I look forward to with each release, though Permanent Waves is probably my favorite!

I've kind of changed my tune on this release since yesterday, and am now looking forward to it. It's not my favorite album but I think they will dig something out of the vault to make it very interesting.

Is it safe to say that 'Rush' is the only album where they actually have unreleased songs that didn't make the album? I seem to recall Neil saying in an interview that there is almost nothing in their vaults, in terms of unreleased songs.
#25 - Posted 12/27/13 @10:56AM by Enigmaticus [contact]

CraigJ,

Thank you for the clarification.

Now I understand why the change in logo design is important on each album; I had not thought of it as reflecting the musical changes in the band. As far as "Rush" is concerned, I only really like two songs on this album, 'Working Man' and 'Here Again;' the rest of it does sound a great deal like a disposable Led Zeppelin tribute album. I have not listened to it in years. Plus, the cover artwork had reminded me of Good & Plenty candies; I did not like those either.

Why not wait until 2015, and release the 40th anniversary expanded edition of "Caress Of Steel," instead? I suppose that it really does not matter which of the earliest albums get expanded, because Neil Peart has referred to that period prior to 1980 as Rush's kindergarten numerous times.

As far as I am concerned, those early albums were always lacking something.

Of course, re-recording "Caress Of Steel," or "A Farewell To Kings," with the accompaniment of either a string section, or a full symphony orchestra, would be a brilliant idea, in my honest opinion.
#24 - Posted 12/27/13 @10:46AM by Mort2112 [contact]

You know I don't mind spending the money on them I know someday I wont be able to do it... so I am very grateful for anything that comes out....
#23 - Posted 12/27/13 @10:27AM by Bytoryyz61 [contact]

Listen to Here Again. Great great song. Just revisited it myself recently.
#22 - Posted 12/27/13 @10:04AM by CraigJ [contact]

I love the fact that the way they represent the name of the band changes with every album. The band is evolving and changing. If you didn't know the band and you listened to "Rush" then listened to "Power Windows" or "Roll The Bones", except for Geddy's voice they don't sound like the same band. My personal favorite version of the "logo" is from Hemispheres.

If they do this I'll give it a listen, but I rarely listen to this album. It's great for what it is, but FBN is an order of magnitude better in every way. No disrespect intended to John Rutsey or the other members of the band, but "Rush" sounds more like a demo tape of a Led Zeppelin cover band.
#21 - Posted 12/27/13 @9:54AM by jupeguyowensound [contact]

Also I mentioned in the previous thread that I was listening to Live at the Agora Ballroom. Just love the part where Geddy says "we'd like to play a song from our new album now". That "new" album was Fly By Night. It gave me goosebumps.
#20 - Posted 12/27/13 @9:50AM by jupeguyowensound [contact]

While this cat does think the first album was pretty groovy and far out, to me the real Rush didn't begin until July 29th 1974. I'm also glad that first album cover didn't become the main logo for the subsequent albums. Think of how many great(iconic really) album covers there have been over the years! There's been a few duds, but most of them are really creative if you ask me.
#19 - Posted 12/27/13 @9:15AM by MRM45 [contact]

While it's so different from the albums that came after it, I love the rawness and youthful energy of the first album. I'd love the overall quality of sound to be better, but don't want to lose the 'grit' that the original contains...
#18 - Posted 12/27/13 @9:01AM by jaeger [contact]

#15 Love the idea of the band re-recording the album---too bad it would never happen. It would certainly justify the comment that the band members are " "very involved" in next year's 40th-anniversary reissue of the group's self-titled debut album" which so far as I can tell is just PR babble. Since when has the band said anything showing anything but happiness that they don't have anything to do with the style of that release...
#17 - Posted 12/27/13 @8:49AM by Alexfan [contact]

Guys, I'm in. Why not? At this point I'll take anything they can give us.

I don't understand why anyone who spends the time on a Rush blog, would bother to complain about spending a few bucks on something. Seriously, how much will it cost, twenty bucks?

I like the first album for what it was, and I would be very interested in any tinkering they decide to do to it.
Leave a comment | Back to top

Page 1 of 2 - 1 2
20 items per page (10 50 ), Sorting by newest first (oldest first)

Login to post your comment

You must login to post comments. If you do not have an account you can create one for free at this link.