Ranking Every RUSH Album šøš„š¹
I started listening to the Canadian power trio Rush when I was in middle school, around 1996 or 1997. This marked the biggest shift in my development as a musician; it was around this time that I started consuming progressive music en masse, from the old classic albums of Genesis and Yes to the newer, crazier prog-metal offerings from Dream Theater and Symphony X. This turned out not to be a phase, but a revelation of a fundamental aspect of my appreciation of music, the sine quÄ nÅn of my aural attention - technical proficiency. Once I discovered bands in which everyone could really play, I instantly and permanently had less patience for bands who couldnāt.
And everybody in Rush could play. I donāt think Rush is the sort of band that you gradually warm up to - you either get it on first listen or you donāt. When I heard what they were doing tonally, compositionally, technically on songs like ā2112ā and āFreewillā, I was astonished. āWhy isnāt all music like this?ā I wondered, and then spent the next several years (decades?) discovering more music that was like that.
Part of that discovery, however, was that quite a lot of Rushās music is decidedly not like that. In fact, despite my now 20+ years as a Rush fanatic, I only regularly listen to about eight of their 19 studio albums. The most recently released of those I enjoy is Signals, which came out on September 9th, 1982 - five days before I was born. This means that Rush hasnāt released an album that I like at any point in my lifetime.
Honestly theyāre more like aliens trying to pass as humans, and nobody wanted to tell them that the illusion was never quite complete.
This may seem a little strange - a Rush obsessive who dislikes more than half of their catalogue - but I can explain. Like any artist who makes music for nearly 40 years, Rush evolved significantly over their career, working with different producers, incorporating new sounds and styles, and experimenting with incipient technologies. In the 1970ās, they were making raucous guitar prog-rock, wearing kimonos on stage and singing 20-minute epics about distant galaxies and whimsical forest creatures. In the 1980ās, they got bad haircuts, rolled up the sleeves on big-collar sport coats, and threw their guitars in the garbage. (These were bad ideas, in my opinion.) By the mid-90ās they had retrieved their instruments from the landfill and started playing honest-to-goodness hard rock. To be sure, there are people who adore Rush in all of their various moods. Some of those people are close friends of mine. I envy them, for I am not like them.
Why did I decide to do this?
Well, besides just being an excuse to listen to hours of my favorite music and then write about it, it was actually a chance encounter with another Rush fan that inspired this exercise. I was wearing my classic Starman t-shirt when my partnerās nieceās boyfriend (yes, this is a real person - hi Michael š) asked if I was actually a Rush fan and not just wearing the shirt because I was in Canada at the time. (In fairness, I do do that sort of thing when Iām in Canada - including insisting on paying for everything in loonies and twonies.) I said no, actual Rush fan here. Inevitable clarifying follow-up question - whatās your favorite album? I can never decide between 2112 and Hemispheres, so I offer both. He counters with Roll The Bones. I thought he was kidding. He was not kidding.
I gave him quite a spirited ribbing about this (and will continue to do so) because, surely nobodyās favorite Rush album is Roll The Bones. Surely. But then I remember that there are people who profess to like the Star Wars prequels, and they canāt all be lying about it, so maybe there really are people who love the Rush that I like least. Perhaps Iāve missed something? What if Iāve forfeited twenty years of musical enjoyment just because I decided when I was 15 that Presto sucked? And Hold Your Fire? And Roll The Bones? And Power Windows? And Grace Under Pressure?
My biases and the methodology
So I decided that Iād go back and listen to the whole damned catalogue and see whatās what. As Iāve already mentioned, Iāve been shunning most of Rushās work since I was a teenager, listening exclusively to the stuff that I fell in love with when I discovered the band. Yes, when Vapor Trails and Snakes & Arrows came out I bought them on CD and listened to them quite a bit, but those albums didnāt survive into the MP3 era for me. (It turns out that Vapor Trails was remixed and re-released in 2013; I was completely unaware of this until about a week ago.) That still leaves at least seven albums that Iām quite unfamiliar with, so thereās room for this to be an interesting exercise.
Iāve always thought that Rushās discography ranged from soaring heights of genius to profound depths of folly, passing through various levels of forgettable mediocrity along the way. In my opinion, Rushās 38 years of recorded studio material can be divided into fairly distinct eras, even if the occasional transitional album defies categorization. I would parse their oeuvre like this:
As you can see, Iām much kinder to the band in certain eras than others. In order to muster some measure of objectivity, I decided to approach this retrospective in much the same way I did when I rated every season of The Simpsons back on my old blog. Rather than listen to each album one at a time, I made a playlist of every Rush song from every studio album and then arranged it alphabetically by song title, thus completely randomizing the list with respect to album. Then I hid the album column so I wouldnāt know my Roll The Boneses from my Prestos. (This works because I generally donāt know which songs appear on the albums I havenāt been listening to. That statement sounds obvious now that I write it.) I gave each song a rating from 1 to 10 (except for two tracks that got a Spinal Tap ā11ā) and kept track of my thoughts on an Excel spreadsheet. Then I rearranged the sheet by album and averaged the scores for each. The list below therefore represents the average strength of the songs on each album.
I can think of at least two potential objections to this approach. One is that the number of tracks per album varies quite a lot - from as few as five to as many as 13 - which can cause inconsistencies in the impact of particularly good or bad songs. I donāt think this ultimately skews the data in appreciable ways, but it may cause one or two albums to be a spot higher or lower than they ābelongā. The second is the completely fair objection that many of these albums were composed as cohesive units meant to be consumed all at once, not separated and intermixed with others. I donāt doubt that I would produce a different list if I listened to each album on its own, but I also think Iād struggle to put the albums into a specific order without a way to quantify my enjoyment of them, even if imperfectly. Having completed the whole project now and seen the results, Iād say this approach works fine for what I was trying to accomplish. (And, in case it needs to be said, this is all just, like, my opinion, manā¦)
So, was I right to have ignored the bandās entire output after 1982? Letās find out! From worst to best, hereās how all 19 of Rushās studio albums go:
#19 - Presto š (4.27/10)
Highlights: āShow Donāt Tellā, āThe Passā
Lowlights: āAvailable Lightā, āScarsā
Taking the award (and by some margin) for my least favorite Rush album is 1989ās Presto. (At least Roll The Bones can proudly wave the āNot Last Placeā trophy!) To be honest, Iām having a little bit of trouble squaring Geddy Leeās comments about the album with my own notes. āWe wanted to stay away from keyboards for this album,ā he says about Presto. āThey can be quite a passive writing tool, and we wanted something more forceful and less pastoral. I wrote a lot more on bass, which reminded me of the old days when there was nothing more to write on.ā ⦠āThis album was a real reaction against technology in a sense. I was getting sick and tired of working with computers and synthesizers.ā ⦠āWe made a pact to stay away from strings, pianos and organs, to stay away from digital technology.ā
By contrast, here are some of the comments I wrote when listening to the songs on this album:
āKeyboards are cringey in the pre-chorusā (āAnagramā)
āPiano chords? ⦠I hate this songā (āAvailable Lightā)
āThis is just 4/4 simple chord stuff with keyboards and blah blah blahā¦ā (āRed Tideā)
āBridge is stupid synth silliness and thereās still 2 minutes leftā¦ā (āSuperconductorā)
Oh, wait - Geddy kept talking after those previous comments⦠āIn the end, we couldn't resist using [keyboards and synthesizers] for colour.ā
Ah.
Here are some more insights from my notes: āVerse is a failed arena-rock riffā (āAnagramā); āThe mix is trebly trash nonsense, Geddyās bass sounds awful, the chorus is awfulā (āChain Lightningā); āAggressively 4/4 guitar-rock of the sort that Iād really rather not ever hear againā (āWar Paintā).
#18 - Roll The Bones š² (4.7/10)
Highlights: āDreamlineā
Lowlights: The rest of the album
I am shocked - shocked! - that Roll The Bones didnāt come in dead last. Iāll give credit where itās due - apparently it averages out to be a bit better than Presto. Also this album was certified Platinum in the US in 2001. Can a million people be wrong? Of course they can. Oh, where to start with this? Even among my Rush-loving friends in high school, this album was a punchline. Ok, yes, the lionās share of that is borne by the rap section on the title track, which has to be heard to be believed. In an interview after the album was released, (drummer) Neil Peart, intimating that the rap section was actually his idea, said the following:
āI wanted to give it a shot because it seemed like a lot of fun to try. I presented it to the guys, who were a bit skeptical at first, but then we tried it a lot of different ways⦠We even tried it with a female voice, but the transition was too harsh. We found Geddy's electronically enhanced low-frequency Barry-White-baritone very pleasing to the ear. The great thing about Rush is that there have never been any limitations.ā
You know what else didnāt have any limitations? The Star Wars prequels. Silliness of the title track aside, this album has serious problems. The mix in general is just awful; in my comments about various tracks across the album I said things like ābad reverb on the vocalsā, āNeilās snare sounds like a cap gunā, āthis is worst-possible Geddy bass toneā, and, āvery strong synths overshadowing most of the other instrumentsā. If I go back to the title track again for a moment, I wrote, āBad mix! Shockingly so in some placesā. About āDreamlineā, the only song I listed above as a (grading on a curve here) highlight, I wrote that, āthis should be a banger, but the mix is insipid and robs it of any visceral impact.ā
Hereās another unflattering way to think about Roll The Bones - within the broader commercial music context in which it was written, recorded, and released. This album came out in 1991. Hereās a list of just a few other albums that also came out in 1991:
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magic
U2 - Achtung Baby
R.E.M - Out Of Time
Metallica - The Black Album
Guns Nā Roses - Use Your Illusion I, II
Nirvana - Nevermind
Pearl Jam - Ten
Primus - Sailing The Seas of Cheese
There was also Michael Jacksonās Dangerous, Mr. Bungleās debut album, and a slew of popular rap and hip-hop releases from A Tribe Called Quest, Cypress Hill, Naughty By Nature, and LL Cool J. And Rush made this.
#17 - Hold Your Fire š„ (4.8/10)
Highlights: āTime Stand Stillā, āTurn The Pageā
Lowlights: āTai Shanā, āSecond Natureā
While 1987ās Hold Your Fire might feel smugly secure as only the third worst Rush album, it unquestionably holds the ignominious distinction of containing Rushās worst song, āTai Shanā. Not even the band disputes this - Geddy said in an interview in 2009, āYou're supposed to be crappy when you make your first three or four records. But even in our middle period, we did this song called āTai Shanā, using a poem Neil wrote about climbing a mountain in China, and when I listen to that it's like, Bzzt. Error⦠We should have known better.ā
A lot of the songs from this era of Rush (the 𤮠era, as per above) can be frustrating in that they often contain very small parts or elements that are good. āLock And Keyā is a great example of this - thereās a really great guitar solo with some quality Ged and Neil jamming underneath, and it momentarily hearkens back to the great stuff from the late 70ās/early 80ās. But that part is 30 sections of a song thatās over 5 minutes long, and the rest of it is terrible. In reviewing my comments on various songs of this era, I can see myself struggling to find new ways to say āI just donāt like how this sounds.ā Neil was playing on electronic drum kits, Geddy was using his Wal basses (have you ever heard of Wal basses? I havenāt, and Iāve been playing bass for almost 30 years), and Alex was apparently hibernating somewhere in the studio instead of recording guitar tracks. Some of my comments for songs on this album included, āOh god, the fart bass and Carlton-dance beatā, āpiano chords again? ⦠this song belongs as background music on The Weather Channelā, āintro is weird and I hate itā, āannnnnd keyboards everywhereā, and, āthe song is repetitive and has intrusive keyboards of various flavors in too many parts.ā
#16 - Grace Under Pressure š© (5.25/10)
Highlights: āDistant Early Warningā
Lowlights: āRed Sector Aā, āThe Body Electricā
For this 1984 studio release, the band ditched their long-time producer and friend Terry Brown (who had worked with them on the eight studio albums prior to this one) in favor of someone whose vocabulary apparently did not contain the word ānoā. Firmly ensconced in the keyboard/synth era, this album also adds elements of ska and reggae, which my poor ears receive as confusing at best and frightening at worst. My notes for songs on this album often point out that it seems like the band is trying to do something creative, but it invariably comes across as jarring and bizarre in a way that simply doesnāt work for me.
Iām not easily put off by weirdness - I love Primus, Mr. Bungle, Frank Zappa⦠but I found myself jotting down things like the following:
āWhat the hell is happening in this song?ā and āI canāt tell if the weird circus part is brilliant or stupid (fine line!)ā (āRed Lensesā)
āI donāt know what to say about this song except that itās really weird and I canāt explain or understand itā and ācocaine island jamā (āThe Enemy Withinā)
āelectronic drum and fart bass intro with chorusy guitar strumsā and āthis is each instrumentalist sounding the worst he has ever sounded and simultaneouslyā (āThe Body Electricā)
āSynth! Synth! Screeching guitar weirdnessā (āBetween The Wheelsā)
Is it too late to give Terry Brown a call?
#15 - Vapor Trails ā (5.62/10)
Highlights: āEarthshineā, āFreezeā
Lowlights: The rest of the album
Iām a little bit surprised to see 2002ās Vapor Trails coming in so low on this list - even lower than an album from the 𤮠era! It also pains me to have to dump all over this album, because it was the first one that Rush made after the longest music-making hiatus they ever had in their career. (After the band released Test For Echo in 1996, Neil Peart lost his only daughter to a car accident and his wife to cancer in less than a year, and the band understandably stopped making music.) Vapor Trails is the first album appearing on this list from what I called the āDad Rockā era in my snarky graphic, so I ought to explain why Iāve characterized those five albums that way.
Just as Rush embraced the style of the times in the 80ās and arranged all of their songs with keyboards and primitive synthesizers, they too shifted along with their peers to more guitar-driven hard rock from the early 90ās. This means that, in one narrow sense at least, their music had more in common with the earliest albums, but thatās about where the similarities end. The era of 20-minute epics and extended solo jams is long gone, not to be resurrected in the slightest even as the keyboards fall away and the songs are written with guitars in-hand. The problem with so much music in the Dad Rock era, in stark contrast to the 𤮠era, is that itās inoffensive to the point of being forgettable. Thereās very little about the music of 90ās-and-forward Rush that is unique. The epic themes and pageantry, the musical overindulgence, the synthesized weirdness - itās all stripped away now, and replaced with⦠nothing. Late-stage Rush doesnāt annoy and confuse me like 80ās Rush; it bores me. I know I stipulated some highlights and lowlights in keeping with the schema above, but in truth I rated every single song on this album a 5, 6, or 7 out of 10. Theyāre all just⦠fine. And thatās the problem.
#14 - Power Windows š (5.88/10)
Highlights: āGrand Designsā, āThe Big Moneyā
Lowlights: āTerritoriesā, āMystic Rhythmsā (yeah I donāt like it, go away)
1985ās Power Windows sits firmly within the 𤮠era, a time when the band was purposefully becoming a less progressive rock band and striving for glory in the new wave, and this makes their music much, much less appealing to me. An outside observer might look at the transformation from Hemispheres to Power Windows (1978-85) and say that the band had sold out at some point along the way, given how much more commercially viable and radio-friendly their music became during that period. In reading interviews from the band during those years, though, itās clear that no external forces were pushing them in the direction of shorter, catchier songs with big synth sounds and relatable contemporary lyrical themes.
Apart from the occasional objection of Alex, who worried that his guitars were being crowded out by the keyboards and gadgets, this was simply the direction the band consciously chose to go, and in that sense at least thereās nothing impure or disreputable about the evolution of their approach to the albums of this era. The music that they chose to make in these years, however, is trash and I hate it. You can just go back and look at the comments I made about the other albums from this era, and theyāre all still applicable to the tracks on Power Windows: in general, the songs are extremely synth heavy, Geddyās bass tone is bad, and the only good parts of any of the songs are the guitar solo sections, which most of them still have but only last for 20-30 seconds. The arrangements at this point are very traditional - intro, verse, chorus, bridge, solo, chorus for four or five minutes. In retrospect, I think we should all be as thankful for grunge killing off new wave as we are for rock nā roll demolishing disco.
#13 - Test For Echo š (5.91/10)
Highlights: āHalf The Worldā, āLimboā, āResistā
Lowlights: āDog Yearsā, āVirtualityā, āTotemā
Released in 1996, Test For Echo was the latest Rush album when I first discovered the band, so I have listened to it quite a bit more than most of the albums that have already appeared on this list. Itās still best described as forgettable Dad Rock-era Rush, but it has the good fortune of āResistā to elevate it above the previous entries overall. The album has the same heavy, guitar-driven hard rock sound that every subsequent Rush album will come to have, and I think thatās generally a positive thing, at least compared to where the band was coming from after Presto.
One thing that stands out to me about Test For Echo is, perhaps surprisingly, the lyrics. As I mentioned a few thousand words ago in the introduction, my main interest in music is the music - i.e. the notes, not the words. In fact I suspect that quite a lot of the redeeming qualities of these ill-ranked Rush albums are to be found in the songsā lyrics, which I generally donāt pay attention to. I know this makes me a very atypical consumer of music, but there are songs that Iāve listened to hundreds of times without ever really learning the words. Anyway - I do notice the lyrics on songs like Virtuality, because theyāre cringey as all get-out:
Net boy, net girl
Send your impulse āround the world
Put your message in a modem
And throw it in the cyber sea
Doesnāt really hold up as the digital age matures, I think. Dog Years and Totem also stick out to me for their unignorable awkwardness. I donāt want to imply that Neil has been particularly derelict in his duties as the bandās chief lyricist for Test For Echo, because itās also possible that I notice the lyrics because the music on the album is so unnoticeable. Either way, Test For Echo isnāt much more than perfunctory heavy radio-rock. To wit: the band didnāt play a single song from this album in the last decade of their live shows.
#12 - Counterparts š© (6/10)
Highlights: āAnimateā, āCold Fireā, āStick It Outā
Lowlights: āEveryday Gloryā, āDouble Agentā
1993ās Counterparts is an album that I was really quite unfamiliar with before this giant re-listening, which is too bad since itās on the more positive side of Dad-Rock Rush. Youāll recall that I criticized Roll The Bones for being hopelessly out of touch with all of the incredible music that other artists were releasing around it; after touring with Primus and listening to Pearl Jam, Rush finally caught up (a little bit, anyway) with the competition. In reading about the production of this album, I was heartened to learn that (guitarist) Alex had become increasingly allergic to Geddyās inclinations towards using keyboards and synthesizers, to the point that he was uncomfortable with the equipment even being brought into the recording studio. Geddy put it this way in an interview in 1993:
ā[Alex] must have said 10,000 times that he didn't want any keyboards on the album, so when I brought my keyboards into the studio there was an immediate atmosphere. He kept looking at them like they were really threatening. Now we wrote all the last album on bass, guitar and drums and added the keys at the end to embellish. That was the only reason the keys were there - or maybe to help me express myself when I was painted into a musical corner - but Alex was making assumptions that I wanted keyboards all over the place. It was a very volatile situation.ā
Three cheers for Alex Lifeson! Why, then, is this album still all the way down in twelfth place? Well, at the end of the day it falls into the Dad-Rock trap of being inoffensive but forgettable. What keeps it ahead of Vapor Trails is that the positive elements of the songs are more prominent and frequent, so I rated more of the tracks towards the 7 side of the 5-6-7/10 range (although the worst song, āEveryday Gloryā, sank to a 4/10). Hereās what I wrote in my notes about āCut To The Chaseā, for example:
āThe intro and verses driven by Geddy's bass are nice; Rush is great in moments like this when they're a Primus-like power trio; a lot of the other parts of the song are just not very interesting (choruses); great Joe Satriani/Eric Johnson guitar solo! Great riff at 3:18 and forward after the solo; basically it's a pretty good song with a bland chorus.ā
A lot of my commentary about this albumās tracks sounded like this - exciting sections unsupported by boring arrangements or parts that just donāt quite go hard enough to be memorable. Thatās Dad-Rock Rush, sadly.
#11 - Snakes & Arrows šš¹ (6.23/10)
Highlights: āBravest Faceā, āWe Hold Onā
Lowlights: āThe Larger Bowlā, āSpindriftā
I guess weāre firmly in Dad-Rock era purgatory here, as 2007ās Snakes & Arrows is next on the list, just outside the top-10. This was the bandās penultimate studio release and the last one that I bought on CD when it was came out. (I remember that I was working at a Borders bookstore and wrote a little blurb for it in the āemployee recommendationā section.) The album followed a similar trajectory for me during my re-listen, with its 13 songs all generally falling between 5-6-7/10 (and again, a sour 4/10 for āThe Larger Bowlā). Seven of the tracks got a 7 out of 10, placing this album higher than the others thus far in the Dad-Rock pantheon (panthropon? to get rid of the āgodā bit?). Snakes & Arrows has a bit more sonic variety than many other albums of this era, with some blues influences on āThe Way The Wind Blowsā, Geddy hopping into a falsetto on a couple different tracks, and the instrumental acoustic number āHopeā.
Speaking of instrumentals, this album has three of them, more than any other Rush album. Two of those three, however, (āHopeā and āMalignant Narcissismā) are only a hair over two minutes long, and the longer one (āThe Main Monkey Businessā) wasnāt even the one nominated for a Grammy for āBest Instrumental Rock Performanceā. Iāve avoided talking about Rush instrumentals on this list so far, but this album is forcing my hand. After āYYZā on Moving Pictures in 1981, Rush didnāt release an album featuring an instrumental track again until āWhereās My Thing?ā on Roll The Bones, a full decade later. Theyāre rare occurrences thereafter, with āLeave That Thing Aloneā and āLimboā being the only other two that arenāt on Snakes & Arrows. To be honest, there isnāt all that much to say about the instrumental tracks after āYYZā - they simply donāt go for the musical flexing or indulgent artistry that define āYYZā and āLa Villa Strangiatoā (the best instrumental rock song Iāve ever heard), so Iām left wondering why they were written and recorded as instrumentals at all. They sound like the rest of the music on their respective albums but with a conspicuous lack of vocals. I know that there are explanations for the titles of āMalignant Narcissismā and āThe Main Monkey Businessā that disconfirm this theory, but I feel like after Moving Pictures the band really developed a distaste for musical over-the-toppery, finding it to be a bit of, well, narcissistic monkey business. I think that disinclination alone has done more to alienate me from the bandās work than any of the their other vicissitudes over my lifetime.
#10 - Clockwork Angels šš¼ (6.36/10)
Highlights: āHeadlong Flightā
Lowlights: āThe Gardenā, āHalo Effectā
Bow before the champion of the Dad-Rock era - the bandās final studio album, 2012ās Clockwork Angels. By 2012 I was mostly into prog-metal-core acts like Protest The Hero and Periphery, so I didnāt really listen to Clockwork Angels when it came out. Wikipedia informs me that this is the only true concept album in the bandās history, although it admits that they have previously dedicated entire sides of records to songs that tell a cohesive story (like, I donāt know⦠ā2112ā, possibly the bandās single greatest musical achievement). Anyway, Iāve read Neilās entire description of the process of writing and recording this album and still have no idea what the concept is, exactly, so Iāll just leave it at that - itās a concept album.
Right, but howās the music on this thing? Eh, itās mostly pretty ok. Some of the songs feel like the heaviest stuff the band has ever written (parts of āBU2Bā, for example), and there are more overtly progressive (read: busy) riffs and solos than one finds on many albums preceding this one. These guys were nigh-on 60 years old when they were recording this thing, and they deserve credit for not taking their foot off the gas and writing ballads - thereās still a lot of energy on this album. āHeadlong Flightā got an 8 out of 10 from me, making it my highest-rated Rush song since āResistā on Test For Echo. Still, the valleys between the peaks are too low to elevate the album higher than this, which is a bummer since it turned out to be their last album (although they werenāt thinking about it that way at the time), and they were by no means phoning it in. They went out on a high note, even if itās a few semitones lower than Gedās high notes in the Hemispheres days.
#9 - Rush šāāļøšØ (7.25/10)
Highlights: āBefore and Afterā, āWorking Manā
Lowlights: āIn The Moodā
Yes, you heard me - I like Rushās debut 1974 album more than their final one. It doesnāt have a sterling reputation among Rush aficionados, and for understandable reasons. No Neil Peart, for one - and his absence is quite noticeable in hindsight, both rhythmically and lyrically. Geddyās squealing banshee vocals can also be a bit startling or off-putting to the uninitiated. I think that Rush can still be defended, not just as a solid classic rock album, but as a Rush album too. The detractors tend to focus on what Rush is missing - complex rhythms and time signatures, epic lyrical themes, Neilās virtuosic drumming - rather than notice whatās here: a set of great-sounding, well-played, fun rock nā roll songs.
Geddy and Alex both have great tone (even though Ged had yet to acquire his signature Rickenbacker 4001), and thereās a guitar solo on nearly every song on the album. And not the 20-second, effects-laded affairs that Alex peppers the 80ās albums with, no - these are proper guitar leads stretching well across the tracks. Some songs, like āBefore And Afterā, have more than one guitar feature; āWhat Youāre Doingā has a solid minute of lead guitar between the 2- and 3-minute marks. Then, of course, thereās āWorking Manā, one of the best songs the band ever wrote, as evidenced by the fact that they played it live throughout their entire four-decade-long touring career. Iād put the guitar solo/jam from 2:06 to 5:20 up against anything else you could hear in 1974. Rush is not just a glimpse at what lay ahead for the band; itās also an incredibly fun, head-nodding classic rock album that is absolutely still worth listening to even in full view of the bandās career.
#8 - Signals š„ (7.63/10)
Highlights: Everything but āCountdownā and āLosing Itā
Lowlights: āCountdownā and āLosing Itā
Iāll admit that I wasnāt always the biggest fan of Rushās 1982 release Signals. I very much considered it a part of the 𤮠era, or at least a little too close for comfort, so I kept it well outside my regular listening rotation. Thereās already an over-reliance on keyboards and synths across this album, and thatās probably the biggest factor keeping Signals from creeping up higher on my list. Itās the strength of whatās underneath the keyboards that makes this album so great - Geddy still has the growly bass tone from Moving Pictures and is ripping crazy lines and fills all over the place - just listen to the isolated bass and drum tracks for āDigital Manā - and Neil is at peak creativity with his beats and fills.
Still, Signals simultaneously looks backward to the last two amazing albums that preceded it and forward to the tsunami of synthesized music that would dominate the next decade of the bandās output. In an interview in 1983, Geddy Lee had this to say about the direction of Signals and the bandās attitude towards growth and innovation:
āWe cannot stand still. We're forever searching, improving and developing the band. If we lose a certain amount of fans along the way, if people can't accept a particular musical direction, then so be it. We'll cope with that. We simply can't compromise. It's not in our nature to do so.ā
Lee then goes on to make some comments that are completely at odds with the direction the band would actually go with their next several albums (emphasis mine):
āOur last album 'Signals' was in many ways the beginning of a new era for us. But if you asked me what shape or form this 'new era' will be taking ... I really couldn't tell you for sure! I honestly can't put my finger on it. There are so many different factors pulling at us from so many different sides. ⦠We don't want to become too cold - and for that reason I'm a little worried about the growing use of the synthesizer in our music. The main reason why I think 'Signals' was badly received by a section of our fans was that on the album Alex Lifeson was relegated to a relatively minor guitaring role, because of the preponderance of synths. That's something that's certainly got to change.ā
Those were wise words that Geddy seems to have immediately forgotten, as synthesizers went on to dominate the bandās sound well into the 1990ās. Thankfully some of the magic of Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures is still to be found on Signals, even if the bandās guitar-rock roots are being washed away by the new wave of the 1980ās.
#7 - Fly By Night š¦ (7.88/10)
Highlights: āBy-Tor & The Snowdogā, āAnthemā
Lowlights: no
1975ās Fly By Night is in many ways the first real Rush album, as it marks the beginning of the bandās work with drummer/lyricist Neil Peart and producer Terry Jones. It also contains what I consider to be the first real Rush song - āBy-Tor & The Snow Dogā, a nine-minute musical odyssey that the band described as āa joke that got out of hand.ā Even as the bandās first attempt at a longer-form, instrumentally-intense prog-rock epic, āBy-Torā is a fully-formed and legitimate representation of the genre, nearly as entertaining and impressive as longer tracks like ā2112ā and āCygnus X-1ā on subsequent albums. Itās so good itās easy to forget that these guys were only in their early 20ās when they made it.
The band made a conscious effort to showcase different aspects of their sound on Fly By Night, resulting in a varied collection of songs that donāt really seem to fit all that well together. Thereās also a mixture of slightly more straightforward older songs like āBest I Canā and āIn The Endā, which were written before Peart joined the band, and ambitious new compositions like āAnthemā and āBy-Torā. Throw in āMaking Memoriesā and āRivendellā with their overtly acoustic sounds, and youāve got an eclectic track-list lacking in any cohesive theme, musical or lyrical. Yet Fly By Night isnāt just important for what it represents in the bandās career; itās also a solid classic prog-rock album that doesnāt have a single disappointing song.
#6 - Caress Of Steel ā (8/10)
Highlights: āBastille Dayā, āThe Fountain Of Lamnethā
Lowlights: āI Think Iām Going Baldā? Itās kind of still great though
Just missing out on the top-5 is 1976ās Caress Of Steel, an album that was so disappointing upon its release that it nearly killed the bandās career. Sales of the album were worse than for Fly By Night, and their record label didnāt like it at all, leading the band to refer to their tour in support of the album as the āDown The Tubesā tour. Caress of Steel is still generally overlooked by fans and critics alike and is widely regarded as a step in the wrong direction for the bandās 70ās-era prog-rock work, the era that I depicted above as spanning from Fly By Night to Hemispheres. It stands in particularly sharp contrast to 2112, which the band released only six months later to critical acclaim. While 2112 went gold in the US in less than a year, it took Caress of Steel more than 20 years to reach that sales milestone.
This disparity is difficult to understand given the similarities between the two albums. Theyāre both proper 1970ās progressive rock epics, with each album featuring a song that takes up the entirety of one side of the record: āThe Fountain Of Lamnethā for Caress of Steel and the title track on 2112. Both albums are rounded out with memorable B-sides as well - āLakeside Parkā and āBastille Dayā went on to become staples of Rushās live sets for decades (despite Geddy famously not really liking āLakeside Parkā very much). I think oneās valuation of this album ultimately depends on its two longest tracks - āThe Fountain Of Lamnethā clocking in at 20:11 and āThe Necromancerā at a still formidable 12:38. Hereās what I said in my listening notes about āThe Fountain Of Lamnethā:
āCan you imagine them doing the part at 4:20 at any point after 1976? This is peak Peart; solo screech Geddy vocals at 8:00 are immaculate; this is their longest song that isn't ā2112ā and it's not nearly as revered, which is understandable, but it's not far off - it has most of the elements that ā2112ā has, just with slightly less memorable and raucous riffs; it's not as audacious as some of the other epics (apart from the aforementioned drum interlude) but all of the music herein sounds great; it also ends with a wimper rather than a bang.ā
And about āThe Necromancerā:
āThis is the weird song that āThe Fountain of Lamnethā isn't, so there's room for both on the album; the riffage and Geddy vocals at 4:30 and forward are formidable; dat riff at 5:33 with the guitar solo is great; then the second guitar lead with the drum fills etc at 7 minutes; then by 8:45 it's a different song. Geddyās vocals in this era are one of the most notable things about the band, and heās on-point here; thereās a great Lerxst lead to bring the track home.ā
#5 - 2112 šš (8.17/10)
Highlights: ā2112ā, āA Passage To Bangkokā
Lowlights: āTearsā
At number five, which is lower than I thought itād be, is the bandās 1976 prog-epic 2112. Itās not that I donāt actually like this album as much as I thought I did; itās just that there are only six tracks on it and one of them (āTearsā) I donāt really like very much, so its low score dragged down the average. So while I like the title track (which occupies the entire A-side of the record) more than any other song on A Farewell To Kings (at #4 on the list), side-B is a bit of a letdown, relatively speaking.
Following the woeful performance of Caress Of Steel, the bandās manager had to talk Mercury Records out of giving them the boot. The label agreed to bankroll one more album, and instructed the band to produce more commercial material. In typical Rush fashion, they completely ignored the labelās instructions and wrote ā2112ā, a 20-minute prog-rock epic about a dystopian future society in which creativity and individualism have been banned by a cabal of malevolent Priests. (A bit on the nose, eh?) The album immediately sold better than any of their previous releases and allowed the band to gain widespread recognition in America. 2112 is the album that created Rush as we know it by saving the bandās career and establishing an international fan base that never went away. Why is ā2112ā so beloved? Itās probably the purest example of 70ās progressive rock music ever recorded and is quintessentially Rush. While itās definitely got weird moments, itās mostly hard-driving, head-banging rock riffs with the signature sound of the era. Ged is screeching like a banshee and wringing the snarliest possible tones out of his Rickenbacker 4001. Alex shreds nearly three minutes of improvised guitar solos across the track. Neil is Neil. ā2112ā is what happened when the band was backed into a corner and just said, āfuck it - this is who we areā. Nobody ever questioned them creatively again.
#4 - A Farewell To Kings š (8.83/10)
Highlights: āXanaduā, āCloser To The Heartā
Lowlights: āMadrigalā
This is probably the biggest surprise to me, as 1977ās A Farewell To Kings isnāt an album that I think about very often, despite it having two songs that I rated at a perfect-10 (āXanaduā and āCloser To The Heartā). This album has a little bit of everything, as the band consciously tried to branch out and write songs with varied tones and instrumentation. Thereās the properly weird āCygnus X-1ā, another sci-fi epic that gets an even longer āPart IIā on the bandās next album, Hemispheres, and āXanaduā, another ambitious track with complex arrangements and tonal layers. But then thereās also āCloser To The Heartā, a much more straightforward rock song that would be perfectly placed on Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures of several years later, and Madrigal, a quirky little acoustic and keyboard number.
One thing that Iām learning (or perhaps just being reminded of) about Rush throughout this retrospective is that they were always trying new things and changing their sound, something that isnāt as easy to notice when listening to individual tracks removed from the broader context of the albums they come from. A Farewell To Kings, for example, sees the band making a conscious effort to play new instruments on the album and infuse different styles of writing and arranging, including lyrically. Thereās still some of the hard rock riffery that drives much of ā2112ā, but thereās also whimsy and radio-friendliness. Somehow it all works for me on this album, every bit of it.
š„ - Moving Pictures š¼ (8.86/10)
Highlights: āYYZā, āTom Sawyerā, āLimelightā
Lowlights: āWitch Huntā
Within Rush fandom thereās a constant battle for supremacy between their 1980 album Permanent Waves and this one, Moving Pictures, released only 13 months later. From a commercial standpoint, Moving Pictures is the unambiguous winner, as the bandās best-selling album of all time, currently certified at 5X Platinum in the US (to just one measly Platinum certification for Permanent Waves). These two albums, though, contain some of the most beloved Rush songs ever, and their proximity in time means that the two are comparable in sound and style. In fact Iāve always struggled to remember exactly which tracks were on which album!
I suppose Moving Pictures is most famous for āTom Sawyerā, the only Rush song youāre almost guaranteed to have heard even if youāre not a Rush fan. To me itās the #1 most air-drummable song ever recorded, with Phil Collinsās āIn The Air Tonightā an extremely distant second. Itās a perfect-10 Rush song (I wonāt hold its mainstream popularity against it). So are āLimelightā and āYYZā, a song that my band-mates and I tried our damnedest to cover when we were in high school. Even though Rush was consciously arranging tighter, more focused compositions and eschewing the prog-epics of Hemispheres and other albums past, they were still injecting progressive elements and showcasing their musical chops regularly. The snyths had already risen from the depths of Hades and would linger for the next decade, but in 1981 theyāre still just a tinge on the bandās sound. This album and Permanent Waves constitute their own distinct golden mini-era of Rush, and itās no wonder this was their most commercially successful period.
š„ - Permanent Waves š (9/10)
Highlights: āFreewillā, āThe Spirit Of Radioā, āNatural Scienceā
Lowlights: āEntre Nousā, āDifferent Stringsā
I mentioned in the biases and methodology section that I awarded two songs an 11 out of 10, thus totally cheating the system and skewing my own results. Iām not going to apologize for doing that, but I will at least say what would have happened if I hadnāt: Permanent Waves would have ended up tied for 3rd place with A Farewell To Kings, and Moving Pictures would be 2nd. I donāt think this matters very much, as both PW and MP are such good albums that Iām happy to just smash them together as the collective 2nd place finisher behind Hemispheres. Theyāre very similar in their composition as well, in that they both contain some absolutely perfect and iconic Rush songs alongside a couple B-sides that I donāt really enjoy all that much. Such is the nature of Rush throughout their career, really.
So, what elevates PW above MP for me? No, itās not āThe Spirit Of Radioā, an unquestionably top-tier Rush song, itās āFreewillā. I awarded that track a Spinal Tap ā11ā, because I think itās my favorite Rush song with vocals. (I decided to give out a vocals-11 after giving āLa Villa Strangiatoā, an instrumental, the first 11. That makes sense, right?) There are many memorable things about āFreewillā, from the tone of Geddyās Ric to Neilās lyrical musings about the perils of organized religion and dogmatic thinking. But itās the instrumental section at the 3-minute mark that elevates the song above any other for me. Itās hard to put into words how utterly perfect the next minute of the song is, as three of the best rock musicians who have ever walked the earth proceed to groove, shred, fill, riff, and solo their way through the best section of music they ever put together. (Watch them rip through it like itās nothing as 60 year-olds in Rio in 2012.) In hindsight itās a little depressing to think that, to me, the band peaked musically in 1980 when they continued to write new music through the 2010ās, but Iām so glad to have peak-Rush.
š„ - Hemispheres š§ (9.5/10)
Highlights: the whole album
Lowlights: no
Ok, so I got my answer to Michael half correct. Coming in (quite comfortably) at number 1 is 1978ās Hemispheres, probably the best album ever to feature a naked man on its cover. Itās also an album that not only has no real weaknesses but also contains one of my favorite songs by any artist - āLa Villa Strangiatoā. Inspired by the vivid nightmares that guitarist Alex Lifeson would have while he was on tour, the song is composed of several distinct sections and takes many twists and turns through its 9:35 runtime, including what I think is Lifesonās best guitar solo (and one of the best of any band in the 1970ās). The songās oft-omitted subtitle (āAn Exercise In Self-Indulgenceā) informs the bandās approach to composing the track, which is ambitious even by the standards of these accomplished players in 1978.
The band infamously (stubbornly?) tried to record the track in one continuous live take in studio, only to be defeated time and time again by their own creation. Apparently they attempted more than 40 takes of the song before finally giving up and assembling the track from four separate takes; all in all the band spent more time working on this one song than they did on the entirety of their Fly By Night album. They never really attempted to do anything like āLa Villa Strangiatoā again (āYYZā is a worthy follow-up, but decidedly less ambitious), which is a shame given what a legendary piece of music they eventually created.
Oh, right - the album has other songs on it too. āCygnus X-1 Book IIā picks up where the first part left off and goes even harder and weirder for 18 minutes. While it doesnāt reach the heights of ā2112ā for 70ās epic Rush, it gets close enough to keep the song in the must-listen upper tier of this era. āCircumstancesā gets (understandably) overlooked as an unassuming little 3:43 B-side, but listen to Geddy tearing up the bass all over that track and singing at the same time! And then thereās āThe Treesā, a song about oak and maple trees fighting over who gets to have sunlight, inspired by the bandās pastoral surroundings in rural Wales when they were writing and recording the album. Only Rush could have written that song and made it work - itās a beloved track despite its overt silliness, and the band played it live time and time again throughout the decades.
Reflections
This was a fun and edifying exercise, and Iām glad I spent the 15+ hours listening to every single song. (If youāre a Rush fan and a writer, why not try it yourself?) While I didnāt discover a diamond-in-the-rough album in that ⦠unfortunate 80ās period, I did gain a deeper appreciation for what the band was trying to do across nearly 40 years of making music. I do still think that a lot of the music they made over the years is of debatable quality and value, but they also made quite a lot of music that I absolutely love, and Iāll be eternally grateful to Alex, Geddy, and Neil for that gift. š¤