Talk:Rush (band)

Activity dates

(No disrespect meant to the "2022" section above, but this is a related, but separate and broader issue.)

Presently the infobox claims Rush was active 1968-2018. I think this is dubious, and doesn't really reflect the text of the article. Rush did not perform again after August 1, 2015 (barring the one-off 2022 reunion). Neil Peart described himself as retired in December 2015 (Lee hedged on this at the time, but the band's website currently affirms this retirement). Peart's cancer diagnosis sometime in 2016 ruled out a return from retirement.

Essentially, Rush was inactive from late 2015, and a return to activity (at least in the band's best-known trio configuration) became impossible in 2016. The 2018 date seems to be based on a January 2018 interview with Lifeson, where he passingly remarked that there were no plans for further touring or recording by Rush. But this was not the first or the last time such statements were made, and Peart's retirement and illness meant that the band was de facto over well before then. It seems to me that 2018 isn't when Rush actually ended activity, but rather when the weight of evidence became such that fans and other band-watchers accepted that the band would not return. In the absence of an official statement that the band has disbanded- very unlikely- I think it makes the most sense to list the band's period of activity as 1968-2015 (and maybe an isolated 2022, for the partial reunion appearance). Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Lifeson confirmed that the band was over in 2018 though, and while Peart's diagnosis went on, the band were not ruling out anything in the future until 2018 when Lifeson confirmed the end of the band. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is "inactive but not explicitly ruling out further activity" the same as "active," though? In what sense was Rush active between 2015 and 2018, except in that hypothetical sense? Lifeson didn't even unequivocally rule out any further activity in 2018- he just said they had nothing planned. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's what things look like to me:

-August 2015: Rush plays their final show. This is the last time the band is meaningfully active.

-December 2015: Peart says he's retiring. Lee soft-pedals the remark a day later, but Peart never takes it back himself.

-March 2016: Lifeson says in an interview that the 2015 tour was the band's last large-scale tour, reinforcing statements he had made in April 2015 (before the tour had ended) to the same effect.

-Later in 2016: Peart is diagnosed with cancer, precluding a return from retirement.

-January 2018: Lifeson states in an interview that the band had "no plans" to return to activity.

-October 2018: Lee says in an interview that there are "zero plans to tour again."

-January 2020: Peart dies.

So- Rush unambiguously ceased activity in 2015. It became impossible for Rush to return to activity in 2016. I don't see a clear reason to latch onto the 2018 Lifeson interview as an "end of activity" date, either in the lead or the infobox- because, contrary to how the article currently frames it, it was not an official statement that the band was over; because the fact that the band was over in 2018 is hardly evidence that it was extant and active in 2017 or 2016- Lifeson did not say "Rush is now officially ending as of my making this statement," he just confirmed that the band had ceased activity and had no plans return; and because he didn't even explicitly rule out further activity- he just said there were no plans for it.

There's no "official disbandment statement" here- the band just ceased touring and recording and the band members later made remarks indicating that they weren't going to start again. I suspect the January 2018 date was latched onto in the past as, by that point, after over two years of inactivity, band-watchers were willing to accept that "no plans" now meant "for good." But there's no particular reason to favor it now, at least absent quality secondary sources that treat 2018 as the year of the band's conclusion. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Just because Neil announced his retirement in 2015 doesn't mean that Rush immediately came to an end. Even if Geddy and Alex didn't seem to be looking for a potential replacement or fill-in for Neil, not only was the band not ruling out any future tours (as User:HorrorLover555 already indicated) but nobody knew that Rush was finished until January 2018, and therefore I consider 2018 to be the correct date of disbandment not 2015. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"The band ceased activity in 2015, but it wasn't public knowledge that the band would not return to activity until 2018" is a very different statement than "the band continued activity until 2018." Basically, the way I see this:

-the field in the infobox is for "activity," not "official formation/disbandment dates"- and it is not disputed that the band ceased activity in 2015- they did not perform or record after 2015;

-Lifeson's 2018 statement was not an official statement that the band had broken up- he merely confirmed in an interview that the band had no further plans as of his speaking;

-further, while Lifeson said the band had no plans, he also didn't definitively rule out future activity in that interview, either;

-even further, Lifeson's statement is not actually evidence that the band was active or extant between 2015 and 2018- he confirmed that the band had ceased activity by the time he was speaking, but the fact that the band had ceased activity by 2018 is not at all evidence that it was active in 2017, for example, any more than for one to say "Abraham Lincoln is dead" right now is evidence that Abraham Lincoln was alive in 2022.

Yet further- the article also presently cites a later-2018 interview with Lee where he was a lot more equivocal about the band's future, saying "I would say there's no chance of seeing Rush on tour again as Alex, Geddy, Neil. But would you see one of us or two of us or three of us? That's possible." Both Lee's and Lifeson's interviews at least implicitly left the door open to future Rush activity of a sort, refusing to rule it out entirely, even as they stated the band had no current plans. I think portraying either interview as anything like an official statement of the band's ending is thus interpreting the speaker's words in a way that's at least borderline original research- it's putting a spin on their words in a way that they themselves avoided; neither of them came out and explicitly said "Rush is over for good."

So- I believe the text of the article states pretty clearly that the band's activity ceased in 2015, and the infobox should reflect that. We have good sources that 2015 was the last time the band was active in any meaningful sense- the last time the three band members performed music together as a group. I believe the 2018 date is shaky, given my reasoning above, and that the use of the date is, basically, a WP editor's (or editors') interpretation of primary source material (the Lifeson interview in question), rather than a date backed by good-quality secondary sources (of which there is, unfortunately, a dearth, not uncommonly for popular music). (Martin Popoff's Driven is the only book in the bibliography to both postdate and cover the band's end- I'd be curious what it has to say.)

Pinging @Mr. C.C.: and @HorrorLover555: also, as they've expressed takes on this recently. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This debate has been going on since Peart first announced his retirement in 2015, because Lee and Lifeson both tried to walk that back and left the door open to more activity on a smaller scale. Maybe they really were done in 2015, or maybe they were just intending to take a break and figure out how to do things less intensely, or maybe they were trying to work out how to continue without Peart, we don't know. We have to go by what the members of the band actually said; interpreting their words or their activities is original research. They didn't, as a unit, agree that they were finished until Lifeson said so in 2018, and that's the date we should use. Remember that Peart also retired in 1997, but we don't omit that five-year period from "activity". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that specifically to read Lifeson's 2018 remarks as confirmation that the band ended as of his statement (in 2018) does require an active work of interpretation, as I think the more obvious reading, in context, has him confirming that the band would not resume activity after having concluded in 2015. In 2018, Lifeson said that "After 41 years, we felt it was enough."- and the 41 years must be counting from Peart's joining (1974) to the final tour (2015). If he meant the band was ending its activity in 2018, would he not have said "after 50 years" (counting from the band's original 1968 foundation) or "after 44 years" (counting from Peart's joining)? Is the more obvious meaning not that the band decided to call it a day after 41 years of activity, 1974-2015? Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(I'm aware I've made arguments from multiple angles here, for which I apologize- I'm not trying to be vexatious so much as I think this matter is kind of vaguely framed- are we doing dates for "formation/disbandment" or "activity"? did the band end when they stopped playing, or when they decided not to play again? who gets to speak for the band, and whose remarks take priority? etc etc) Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with 2018 being the end of the band per Ivanvector. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector, I've extensively searched and read history, random facts, etc. on Rush. As we all know, Clockwork Angels was their last album. R40 Tour was their last tour because Neil Peart was retiring because he had chronic tendonitis and shoulder problems that wade made it hard for him. Even though Alex officially confirmed in 2018 that Rush basically done, Neil was retired for three-years the time of the announcement. Plus, Neil was battling cancer. He was diagnosed with brain cancer in August of 2016. He was given 12-18 months to live, but went to live a total of three and a half year total before his passing on January 7, 2020. So there was no door left open. A door wasn't not even built and let alone installed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yspaddadenpenkawr, where is your source that Geddy Lee "soft pedaled" (as you said) about Neil retiring? As you can see in my reply to Ivanvector, I stated why Neil Peart retired. Chronic tendonitis and shoulder problems. The way Neil played was difficult on his body. I've extensively researched and read history, random facts, etc. on Rush. Nowhere have I read what you claimed. So pony up a source. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I presume the user is talking about: "Rush's Geddy Lee Says Neil Peart Hasn't Retired". 8 December 2015. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. It kind of points up a problem I mentioned above, which is that there are no "official statements" on behalf of the band corporately here; instead we have to work with primary source statements by the individual band members, which aren't all consistent, and to decide which of them have the most weight and priority. Peart says he's retired in 2015, which rules out further Rush activity, at least in the three-piece format; Peart never "took back" his retirement himself, but Lee immediately went out to say "he didn't really mean it." Is there any particular reason we should prioritize Lifeson's 2018 comments as an end-date over Peart's 2015 retirement comments, given that we now know that Peart didn't (and couldn't have) return from retirement, and that Peart never retracted his retirement comments himself? Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I was previously in favor of 2018 being Rush's final year, but I have to admit that Lifeson's words in 2018 are not what I would call an "official statement" by the band. Depending on your point of view, it could be considered a retrospective acknowledgment of an accomplished fact, the band's termination in 2015, especially if we consider that in the same year Peart announced his retirement, even if Lee "soft pedaled" it. I'll have to think about it. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have found evidence supporting your position which should settle the matter for good. In July 2021, Alex did an interview with Eddie Trunk in which he stated "But I think, really, Rush ended in 2015." 68.194.153.220 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, based on the evidence provided, it'd probably be wise to open up another sub-section and ask everyone their preferences with reasoning on why it should be either 2015 or 2018. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

History

Jeff Jones was the first bassist for a couple of gigs, then Geddy, then Rush broke up and became "Hadrian" without Geddy. Geddy notes he was hanging out with an Oscar Peterson, "the first Black Person I'd ever known." So it's increasingly likely that the very common name "Jeff Jones" doesn't refer to the later Ocean and Red Rider bassist. From Geddy's autobiography, page 111. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.244.35.13 (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's the same Jeff Jones. He said in an interview that he met Lee and Peart many years later. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Influences

The main characters of the TV series The Expanse gave names to the weaponry aboard their space frigate: Lee, Peart, and Lifeson. 76.215.47.64 (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok - feel free to write this up with citations from publications. Ckruschke (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Ckruschke

Lifeson confirming 2015 end

In July 2021, Alex did an interview with Eddie Trunk. At 36:07, he states "But I think, really, Rush ended in 2015." Furthermore, people who cite his 2018 interview to justify using 2018 as the end year ignore that in that very interview, Alex stated "After 41 years, we felt it was enough." 41 years fits perfectly if you go from 1974 (first album release, Peart joins) to 2015 but makes no sense if you think the band ended in 2018. Then there's Peart stating in 2015 that he was retired, with a 2021 Rolling Stone article confirming he never played drums after the 2015 concert, even at home. Recently, Geddy has been on a tour for his new memoir. In this interview, he stated that he and Alex suspected the band was over in the dressing room after the final concert, and that shortly afterward when Neil wanted his dressing room case sent home, Geddy knew the band was over. Unless I get a good reason for stil using 2018, I'll change the dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.153.220 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, now I think 2015 is the better date. De facto the band and Peart's career ended that year. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that there are sources that line up, I can agree with having 2015 as the end of the band. We should probably ask everyone in the previous discussion regarding this, to see if they still want to stick with or have changed on having either 2015 or 2018. Pinging Yspaddadenpenkawr, UndergroundMan3000, Mr. C.C. and Ivanvector. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Put 2015 as unofficial and 2018 as official. Problem solved. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. C.C.. As I already stated in this talk page a few months ago, a band member retiring doesn't necessarily mean that the band ended immediately. People who are at least past 50-to-60-years old normally take time to think it over until it's an appropriate time to announce anything, band-wise. For all we know, or at least from what I can recall, none of the guys in Rush ever said anything to the effect of "Yeah, no, we're not together anymore" between 2015 and 2018. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

In this particular case, we do have the members of the band stating that one member retiring did end the band immediately. If all the members of a band decide that the band is over, and there is no further activity, it's over regardless of when anybody else finds out. 68.194.153.220 (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any particular basis for distinguishing between an "unofficial" and an "official" breakup, unless there are sources that make this distinction. There was no official "we've broken up" press release/group statement. The band "broke up" in the sense that they ceased playing music together in 2015. They never "broke up" in the sense that they remained partners in "Rush" as a business entity until Peart passed away, and there were further releases of material after they ceased playing together (eg the R40 live album, the Time Stand Still docu). I think this is kind of moot in any case, as the language in the infobox is "years active," not "years extant," and the musical activity that field is meant to cover unambiguously ended in 2015. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, in addition to everything else, there's the fact that there was no 2018 press release or post on the band's website announcing the end of the band, just an interview with Alex, whose statements ("After 41 years...") made clear he considered the band over in 2015. At this point, I'm ready to change the dates. 68.194.153.220 (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support 2015 in the infobox based on all this, but I think it'd also be good to add a footnote to the date explaining (worded better than this, and with sources) that the band was effectively finished in 2015, but they didn't all agree that that was the case until reflecting on the situation in 2018. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector on having a footnote with explanation. Maybe adding an efn that says "The band ceased touring in 2015, but did not make it official until 2018"? HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I would favor language like "did not publicly confirm they had ceased activity" over anything indicating the breakup was "official" (or even that there was a singular moment of "breakup")- though this is admittedly kind of pedantic. We don't know exactly when Lifeson and Lee agreed that Rush was done, so we shouldn't indicate that this decision happened at any given time; we do know when Lifeson publicly stated that they had agreed as much, so we should describe that and use appropriate language to do so. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@HorrorLover555, psst. All of that is in the intro. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Noted. I have also contacted the other WikiProjects for other opinions regarding this, to see if a compromise or consensus can be made. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@HorrorLover555, or you can WP:RFC. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will request an RfC. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector, it's in the intro supported with references. What more do you want? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree 2015 seems the more sensible date in terms of the Years Active parameter in the infobox. I don't think we even need a footnote. The main article text can explain everything in detail. It already does a good job of that. I agree with Yspaddadenpenkawr that the "official"/"unofficial" language doesn't add anything. Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the RFC to a new subsection to make clear for readers. HorrorLover555, please state your clear, concise question under the box. It doesn't seem like there’s disagreement about the date itself, so something like “how should the two dates of Rush’s end be represented in the lead and the infobox?” would work well. — HTGS (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Early close with WP:SNOWy agreement on Yspaddadenpenkawr's suggestion. No prejudice against further discussion on phrasing or precise structure where needed, and with reconsideration for future changes, per Ivanvector. — HTGS (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

---

How should the two dates (2015 or 2018) of Rush's end be represented in the lead and infobox? HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In the infobox: I think the infobox "Years active" field should read "1968-2015." That's the span of time that Rush was active as a musical group, as the name of the field indicates. I don't think further footnotes or parenthetical asides are necessary, as the infobox is just meant to summarize the article at a glance, rather than explain the quirks and fine details underlying the data it presents.

In the lead: something like "Rush performed their last concerts in 2015, and Peart said he had retired from music later that year. Comments Lifeson made in 2018 indicated that the band had decided not to resume activity following the 2015 tour." I would prefer to avoid terms like "breakup" (the band members remained partners in a business sense, and were on good terms- and "breakup" might imply the contrary to each of these), "official" (absent any formal statements made by Rush as a group, it's hard to make a case that any of this was "official"), or "hiatus" (which implies a deliberate but temporary break from activity, rather than permanent discontinuation), unless there are good sources that use such language.

I also think we should avoid saying anything like "the band decided in [year] to cease..." (not that this has been proposed necessarily)- we know that Peart decided to retire in 2015, and we know that Lifeson made public the decision not to resume activity in 2018; we can and should report those facts. We don't know when exactly (or even if) the group collectively agreed not to perform as Rush again, and in particular we shouldn't assume that Lifeson was announcing a decision that had just been made, as was sort of implicitly the case with using his statement as the band's end date. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: Well argued. _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support I think this is a strong, suited argument to why it should be changed to 2015 in regards to "years active". The lead very much covers on the 2018 part where Lifeson announced to the public that Rush would not continue. I do not have any objections as I previously did before, and am ready to move forward should everyone else involved in the discussion share their preference. HorrorLover555 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging UndergroundMan3000 if they support or oppose the changes for the article, with their reasoning. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Yspaddadenpenkawr's position. Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: A well stated and unassuming position. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per the discussion above, but I wonder if we need to add something regarding recent reports that Lee and Lifeson are again discussing touring and possibly making new music as Rush (e.g. "Geddy Lee talks new material & potential RUSH shows", Metal Injection, November 14, 2023; "Rush's Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson on the band's next chapter", CBS News, December 3, 2023). But regardless, we don't predict the future and 2015 is the right date to use based on what we know today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per above and especially Ivanvector's reasoning. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Leevine65 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Support, as per Yspaddadenpenkawr and Ivanvector. It would be in line with the manual of style that the articles for other inactive bands (such as Bread) follows. Kimosaabe (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RUSH or Rush

There are a couple recent edits that have changed all occurrences of RUSH to Rush and back. Based on this article which includes the band's logos over time, a case could be made for either spelling - RUSH, or Rush. So I am on the fence with which one the article should use. I like the look of Rush from a readability perspective. And it appears that the distinction is somewhat arbitrary. Unlike other artist spellings that may include a mix of Uppercase and lowercase, and even special characters like P!nk and Ke$ha. See this article for some other examples. What do others think about RUSH vs Rush in the article? Gbeeker (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:TMSTYLE. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

By far the most sources use title-case "Rush" including very reliable musicologists writing books about the band. For instance, Martin Popoff's books Rush: Album by Album and Contents Under Pressure: 30 Years of Rush at Home and Away. Or Durrell Bowman's Experiencing Rush: A Listener's Companion. Geddy Lee's memoir My Effin' Life uses title case for the band name. Newspapers such as The New York Times use title case. I don't see any chance of the all-caps style sticking around longer than it takes to revert. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and the definitive references. Rush wins by a Style-Mile.Gbeeker (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)