Jump to content

Talk:Rush (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleRush (band) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 9, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 3, 2015Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Lifeson confirming 2015 end

[edit]
Per RFC below, the discussion has concluded that Rush's end of activities is to be represented as 2015 in both the lead section and infobox. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@HorrorLover555, or you can WP:RFC. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I will request an RfC. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RFC

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support: Well argued. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Pinging UndergroundMan3000 if they support or oppose the changes for the article, with their reasoning. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yspaddadenpenkawr's position. Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A well stated and unassuming position. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support per above and especially Ivanvector's reasoning. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Leevine65 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

See MOS:TMSTYLE. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with Binksternet. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response and the definitive references. Rush wins by a Style-Mile.Gbeeker (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RUSH PDF INOP

[edit]

When you download the PDF it is corrupted. can someone fix it? 2600:1700:24E0:8870:188:59FE:4EB:C19F (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_(band)&oldid=1256619126"