Talk:Rush (band)

Neil Peart Section is empty

The entire Neil Peart section is empty and someone needs to input information about him besides just a link to his main page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Furrface (talk • contribs)

Its divided into two subsections: Music and lyrics - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Instrument lists in Band members section

you don't need to list every damn instrument they play. for example. "12 string acoustic and electric guitars" ,"6 sting electric and acoustic rhythm guitars" and "classical guitar" should just be "Lead/rhythm guitars". things like "mellotron" should be listed as keyboards and who listed "sythn and bass pedals"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.138.158 (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair points. I trimmed some of the secondary instruments and info. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Subsection titles (again)

So, as I've argued in the past, I believe that the subsection titles for "the progressive years" and "returning to their roots" are factually incorrect and unsupported by RSs. I've changed the History of Rush article to have different section title [1]. They could use improvement, but they are at least no longer incorrect. I would like to sollicit opinions on how to improve the titles in that article, and change the ones in this article.LedRush (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Those section labels seem fine [for here] but the use of "The". That should be avoided except for specific names/titles. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you support using those section labels here?LedRush (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point of my post. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were commenting on the first part of my question and not the second.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Me too, I did not make that clear. Carrying those labels here seems fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Alex Lifeson

I was unable to find any references supportive of the following statement:

Despite his esteem, however, Lifeson is often regarded as being overshadowed by his bandmates because of Lee's on-stage multi-instrumental dexterity and Peart's status as a drummer.[94]

the link (94) also does not work (forbidden access).

Thank You K2msmith (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Genres

Why wouldn't instrumental rock, pop rock, alternative rock, classical rock, or rap rock be included in the genre list?209.213.155.25 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Or Christian rock?209.213.155.25 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pet rocks? ManfrenjenStJohn (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Jones

Jeff Jones was never in Rush. Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and John Rutsey founded Rush. Hermanator1 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the official biography, he was. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Why can't Progressive Metal Be part of the genre? It's definitely heavy metal and progressive rock so why can't it be combined?58.179.143.14 (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Essentially because Progressive Metal is not Progressive rock + Heavy metal music, but a specific genre that arose in the 1980s with bands like Queensryche and Dream Theater (see the Allmusic entry at [2]). No doubt Rush were an influence, but not part of the genre.--SabreBD (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay then can we at least mention that some songs were Proto Prog Metal and they are highly influential on the genre. Jamcad01 (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Although your statement is fundamentally sound; and, I am a huge fan of Rush, Queensryche, and Dream Theater; I would list Fates Warning as opposed to Dream Theater, as they pre-date them by a couple of years. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The vital thing here is to have a reliable source. The citation of a quote from Buckley 2003 actually implies the reverse of what you are claiming, not that they were producing a mixture of heavy metal and prog rock, but they were moving off to something new and away from those genres. There are two other points here: first, that the role of this article is not to support the case for prog metal, but to deal with the subject of the band in a balanced and neutral way. The second is that there is a sentence in the lead which says: that they influenced "progressive metal bands such as Dream Theater and Symphony X", which seems to cover exactly what you want to say.--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least add Prog Metal to "Bastille Day", "Anthem", "By-Tor and Snow Dog", "2112", "The Fountain of Lamneth" and "Something for Nothing"? Jamcad01 (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that say they are prog-metal?--SabreBD (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Rush songs such as "Bastille Day", "Anthem", "By-Tor and Snow Dog", "2112", "The Fountain of Lamneth" and "Something for Nothing" have been cited as some of the earliest examples of progressive metal. Copied straight from the Wikpedia page on Progressive Metal. (Sorry that the source can't be viewed. View it on the Wikipedia page on Progressive Metal. Jamcad01 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself what matters is what the source says, do you (or anyone) have access to a copy so that we can make a judgement?--SabreBD (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=rAn-s2oWjQIC&pg=PA190&dq=Rush+progressive+metal&lr=#v=onepage&q=Rush%20progressive%20metal&f=false Progressive rock reconsidered by Durrell S. Brown. This is a published source so it should be reliable. Jamcad01 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That link just goes to the book cover for me (this can vary from different pcs), so I have no idea from that what it says. Do you have access to a copy?--SabreBD (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to throw cold water on this, but even if the book says that Rush had some prog metal songs, who cares? This seems like a case of WP:Undue. I would think in order to make the info box, we would need a bunch of reliable sources. Now, if you wanted to mention in the body of the article that the author of this book has called Rush (or certain of Rush's songs) prog metal, that would be more than ok.

Its true that just because there is evidence does not mean it is notable enough to go in. It is unlikely that listing individual songs is going to fit into this article, which is about Rush not prog metal.--SabreBD (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I meant to add it to the articles of the songs themselves. Jamcad01 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case it would be best to find the sources first and then probably take it to the talkpages of the individual articles.--SabreBD (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with these attempts to categorize Rush as progressive metal. I'll name two. First off, this is precisely a case of undo weight. Certainly not all references are created equal, and passing mentions from a solitary or even a handful of authors does not warrant the inclusion of this genre into the info box. It's simply not notable. Secondly, it's also an incredibly specious argument to suggest that this description is accurate based on the fact that Rush was at one time "progressive" and played early "metal". Combining these terms is erroneous. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Jamcad has also now taken it upon himself to add "progressive metal" to individual albums using the same dubious source and invalid logic found here. This is just not appropriate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering what is wrong with my "Metal: A Headbangers Journey" Source? I don't understand why you guys think it is so unreliable. Also since when was Allmusic a reliable source? Jamcad01 (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A DVD is not sufficient for the assertion that some authors refer to Rush as progressive metal. First, which authors? Who are they? In what context is the assertion made? Is it merely historical? Contemporary progressive metal is a very specific genre. Ideally, the sources should be easily assessable to those who visit Wikipedia so they can be fact checked - published written secondary sources (news prints, journals etc..) are desirable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning Rush as progressive metal may be undue weight and unless a consensus forms here that states that it should be mentioned then it should be left out.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm only mentioning that some authors label them as such. In this case it is Sam Dunn. Have a look at this wikipedia page and tell me what you guys think of it.--Jamcad01 (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Also I changed the source to look like this: "Sam Dunn, Metal : A Headbanger's Journey, Sam Dunn, 2005."--Jamcad01 (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I should also mention that he is the same person that directed "Rush: Beyond The Lighted Stage"--Jamcad01 (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. That is one author's view. How many other authors (reliable sources) have this same view?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

First off, another Wikipedia entry cannot be used as a reference, even if used in conjunction with something else. Secondly, all this proves is that early Rush was merely influential in the development of the genre - not that they are part of it. This has never been in dispute. However, there is a huge difference between the two. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not using the Wikipedia page as a reference. I'm just using it to show you guys the source that is being used as a reference. It says Rush ARE Progressive Metal, not just influential. Also how about we change the sentence to "leading to at least one author labeling them as progressive metal."--Jamcad01 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that is why we have WP:UNDUE.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the balance of opinion is that, although this one filmaker defines them as prog metal, this is a bit idiosyncratic and that it would give undue weight to include this in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguing to include a brief statement about what a single author says is non-notable and epitomizes undue weight. It's starting to become patently obvious that Mr. Jamcad has a fundamental misapprehension of what progressive metal is and possesses a preconception about Rush that he is attempting to cream data to conform to. You don't start with an assertion and then mold data or cherry pick bits of information to support it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake, Mr Wisdom. Will you please explain what the difference is between a band like Rush and a band like Dream Theater? "Progressive metal blended elements of heavy metal and progressive rock music, taking the loud "aggression",[1] amplified electric guitar-driven sound of the former, with the more experimental, complex and "pseudo-classical" compositions of the latter." That is the definition of Progressive metal according to Allmusic. Please explain how this doesn't apply to Rush? Also it was originally the source itself that led me to believe Rush are Progressive Metal. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." My source is a reliable source and I am merely mentioning the fact that at least one person thinks it's notable. I should also mention that in the documentary he directed, that states Rush were progressive metal, one of the people he interviews is Geddy Lee. So I'm pretty sure he would be happy if Rush were stated as being Progressive Metal. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Now, if you wanted to mention in the body of the article that the author of this book has called Rush (or certain of Rush's songs) prog metal, that would be more than ok." If you look near the top of this topic you'll see that this person said it would be ok for me to mention that one author has said that Rush are Progressive Metal. That is what I'm trying to do right now. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. You seem to be missing the fundamentals here. You will be needing more than one source bearing one opinion. Why don't you try finding where the band members themselves may have described their music? What have they labeled their own music? That would certainly lend more weight and be likely to gain acceptance here. As it stands now, you have not made a compelling argument and gained consensus.

Allmusic isn't a reliable source. Also, no one needs to counter an argument which is failing in the first place. "Also it was originally the source itself that led me to believe Rush are Progressive Metal." -- right, so perhaps you need to accept that the source may be wrong or at the very best (lacking bolstering opinions from RSs) a tiny sliver of a single opinion. This isn't worth mentioning. Without additional sources to strengthen your argument, you have lost your point.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As a long time listener to Rush, I personally would never consider them to be in the Progressive Metal category. However, they are one of the most influential bands to the genre. Rush paved the way for the true Progressive Metal bands of the 80's; Queensryche, Fates Warning, and Dream Theater. I think this discussion is great; it's what makes Wikipedia so great. Over the years, I've read and read and read about this very topic; and, I've never personally come across any interviews with any band member categorizing themselves as Progressive Metal. At times, I've even read that they don't really consider themselves Progressive. I'll through this into the fray. "Well, I certainly identify with Progressive Rock and I certainly don't mind RUSH being labeled as a Progressive Rock group. I have always felt I was more accurately a Hard Rock musician." - Geddy Lee The Consummate Geddy Lee Interview http://www.globalbass.com/archives/dec2000/geddy_lee.htm BigJoeRockHead (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine how about this:

"They have been cited as an influence by various musical artists, including Metallica,[1] Primus,[2] Rage Against the Machine[2] and The Smashing Pumpkins.[2] Their mixture of progressive rock and heavy metal has been a big influence on progressive metal, influencing bands such as Dream Theater[1] and Symphony X.[3]"--Jamcad01 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I will add this in 72 hours if no one opposes. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem remains that we can only post what is in the sources, the one source that works (for Dream Theater) says nothing about being an influence on progressive metal, just on metalheads. Also please read WP:OR for why we cannot say progressive metal = x, I think Rush = x, therefore Rush are progressive metal.--SabreBD (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There are heaps of sources saying Rush have a mixture of Heavy Metal and Progressive Rock. --Jamcad01 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The article went through extensive discussion during Featured Article build up and the 3 genres agreed on, and still the best fitting, are the 3 currently in the box. They are not and have never been a progressive metal band. Heavy metal applies easily. And their songwriting was influenced by progressive rock in as far as they dabbled with fantasy lyrical themes and has extended song length which showcased their musicianship. But all of this music was still just hard rock and heavy metal in its core styling. Progressive metal, or any additional genre, should never be added to the box. Mr Pyles (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please read the whole discussion before commenting? Thanks. --Jamcad01 (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In this current discussion I need only read the comments of respected veteran editors like Wisdom89 and SabreBD to get a real gist of the conversation. The only reason this page is a Featured Article is because of the hard work of Wisdom89. He knows his Rush. And, more importantly, he knows the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and knows what it takes to make a trustworthy encyclopedia page. The other comments from single-purpose accounts, socks and IPs are irrelevant here since they seem to want to push personal POV and fanboyisms over fact. Nothing should ever jeopardize the FA status of this page. Like a childish genre war would do. Especially one started with the goal of adding false information... like progressive metal... to the page. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. I'm simply trying to compromise and add this to the opening paragraph: "They have been cited as an influence by various musical artists, including Metallica,[1] Primus,[2] Rage Against the Machine[2] and The Smashing Pumpkins.[2] Their mixture of progressive rock and heavy metal has been a big influence on progressive metal, influencing bands such as Dream Theater[1] and Symphony X.[3]" --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also stop singling out editors. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I can single out an editor if I wish... a dedicated editor like Wisdom89 puts his personal opinions aside when editing Wikipedia... and when it comes to Rush... if he puts a valid statement, back up by fact, against a proposed edit... he is to be respected. lso note... from your earlier comment.... There would not be a doom metal genre without Black Sabbath... but Black Sabbath have never played/recorded any doom metal. There likely would not be a thrash metal genre without Motorhead... even though they have never played thrash metal themselves. Influence on a genre... and playing a genre are not the same thing. And cannot be used to support an argument or edit which is not prop'd by valid citations. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh for gods sake I added Hard Rock to Black Sabbath. Someone else added Doom Metal. Stop saying I'm to blame for everything. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said you added doom metal to Black Sabbath... I simply pointed an edit like that out as an example. I had you idea you had made that error. And if you added hard rock to that page, well, you are forgiven... I think the regular editors of that page can all abide by WP:AGF that you won't do it again. As for this page... edit history, discussion (many) and solid consensus based on citations supports keeping the page as is... no additions... no deletions. Hope that helps. Have a happy new year. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're effectively saying that this page should stay exactly the same. Wikipedia is about adding and improving articles to keep it up to date & making it better in general. --Jamcad01 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

...but you aren't improving anything.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion and I am simply trying to say they were INFLUENTIAL on the genre not that they are themselves. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading this entire thread, it is quite evident that Jamcad01 is a voice in the wilderness and every other editor has disagreed for one reason or another with the addition of Progressive Metal as a genre for Rush music. Why is this discussion still continuing? Is it really necessary to start a new thread for people to vote to corroborate the obvious? Ckruschke (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

It is over. Jamcad's hearing problem is getting to be disruptive. He has lost the argument so things will likely take the turn of ignore, revert, block. Genre warring is unwelcome on Wikipedia. Time to ignore.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And with that solid/clarifying statement... the gavel drops. Thank you Berean Hunter! Happy New Year to all. Mr Pyles (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh for Gods Sake. I'm trying to compromise by saying that they were INFLUENTIAL on the movement by adding this to the opening paragraph: "Their mixture of heavy metal and progressive rock has been highly influential on the Progressive metal genre, influencing bands such as Dream Theater and Symphony X." I am not trying to add it to the infobox anymore. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable with just adding a standalone statement to the lead as its purpose is to provide a summary of the main body text. Moreover, we can't synthesize/make a concluding statement (i.e. that Rush was influential on the entire genre) based on single bits of information (i.e. that they influenced Dream Theater and Symphony X). Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I know this is synth, but Cliff Burnstein did call Rush both progressive and metal (but not progressive metal) in "Beyong the Lighted Stage". I think Rush is clearly not progressive metal, and no sources seem to either. However, it does seem to make sense to say how they've influenced the genre if we can get the cites to back it up (and then it would go in the main article, not the lead).LedRush (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I know people are probably sick of me now but there is one more source I found: Mean Deviation: Four Decades of Progressive Heavy Metal By Jeff Wagner, Steven Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamcad01 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Influence Section

In connection with the discussion above regarding the influnce Rush had on the progressive metal genre, I thought that a sourced statement of such could easily go into a section discussion the influences that Rush has had on other artists. I can't seem to find that section. If it's there, please see my earlier recommendation. If not, shouldn't we have one?LedRush (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, a section detailing Rush's influences on other artists and genres seems to be conspicuously missing. That would be a fitting place for a statement about progressive metal - provided we can come up with multiple sources. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A section like that, of course, could balloon into something absolutely huge. It's not a bad idea... fairly common on Wikipedia too. But there should be some sort of agreed upon limitation of just how big it should be because, face it, the band is listed as a primary inspiration and influence by literally thousands of bands who are notable enough to have their own Wiki-page. Several other "bloated" sections found themselves split off into separate articles because they became too immense. Only later to be put on the AfD chopping block and either saved by the skin of their citations or, in some cases, lost completely (anyone remember "Rush in popular culture" article?) An influence section could easily grow into a fanboy magnet. The limit of its girth should be set it stone right here before beginning. Just a thought. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We cannot set anything in stone here (consensus changes, blah blah blah), but I think an agreed upon current topic size is a good idea to prevent the types of issues you detail. I suggest approximately matching the length of the current "influences" section (i.e., about 5 lines). The structure would be a general statement about their influences on musicians, bands and genres, followed by a list of only the most notable of said examples.LedRush (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I glad to see you guys compromising. I would be completely happy with this. Thankyou. --Jamcad01 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)